Street Prophets

P.B.S.: Return On Investment

Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:58:56 AM PDT

It's time for our inaugural Progressive Bible Study. Follow me below the fold for the text, notes, and conversation.

  • ::

Luke 14:1, 7-14 (NRSV):

On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching him closely.

7When he noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. 8“When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host; 9and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this person your place,’ and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place. 10But when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you. 11For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” 12He said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. 14And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Notes
This pericope is blessedly free from textual and translation problems. A few quick word studies help bring the message into view:

7-noticed: literally "grasped with his mind". Jesus and his hosts are eyeing one another up.

8-honor: "doxa," "praise," the same word we get "doxology" from.

9-in disgrace: "with shame"

10-Friend: a very intimate term in this context, implies that the person being addressed is almost a co-host of the dinner party.

11-humble: being humble or "low-minded" was used as a vice in Greek moral literature. Christians were the first to use the term as a positive affect.

13-poor: Luke's blanket term for anyone excluded from the traditional community.

Interpretation
This pericope contains two separate sayings of Jesus welded together to make a single point. The first runs from verse 7 to verse 10, and is based on a commonplace piece of social advice derived from Proverbs 25:6-7:

Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence
  or stand in the place of the great;
for it is better to be told, ‘Come up here’,
  than to be put lower in the presence of a noble.

The second saying is almost a transvaluation of values, with Jesus directing his hosts to invite not the wealthy and the famous to their tables, but the poor and the despised, in imitation of God's hospitality.

In between these two sayings is a remarkable pivot in verse 11: "all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." The passive tense here implies that God will accomplish this role reversal, and the phrase itself echoes the punchline of Luke 18:1-14 and Matthew 23:1-12.

Comments
This story goes well beyond the prescription to "judge not lest ye be judged" to articulate God's positive affinity for "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind." Those suffering from these afflictions could not be admitted to the Temple under the Levitical code, but perhaps more important, they were also people who could not earn their own living. And yet, they are exactly the people God commands his followers to seek out and eat with. That's a direct, primary command: don't send them some food, don't invite but ignore them. Bring them in, sit them down at your table, and be their equals.

In connecting Jesus' standard admonition to be humble in polite society with an inverted social pyramid, then, Luke has handed out a radical woof ticket to both our economic and our spiritual assumptions. That's consistent with his vision of Jesus as the prophet who overturns the social scheme (see 1:46-55 and 4:16-30).

Where the usual game would be to make a social investment by inviting guests with power, privilege, or simply cash with which to repay their host, Luke states that God's desire is for us to invite precisely those who cannot repay us, almost as if "Jesus urges a social system without reciprocity," as Halvor Moxnes says. Or as Luke Johnson has it, this is "a parody of the 'good advice' of worldly wisdom."

Questions for Discussion

  • Fred Craddock calls the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind "kingdom people," since in Luke's telling, they are those who are most welcome at the heavenly banquet in the Kingdom of God (a standard trope in Luke's gospel). Who do you think the "kingdom people" in your world would be?
  • It seems obvious to most progressives that American social, economic, and political systems are geared to exclude "kingdom people" from full participation. Assuming that's true, how can the policies that enforce that exclusion be undone? What is our role - as Christians, other people of faith, or people without belief - in seeking a society that intentionally draws in the marginalized?
  • A common critique of our elite media system is that it is based on exactly the kind of dinner-party clubbishness that Jesus decries here. What would it mean to have a media driven by "the kingdom people" instead of a "return on investment"?
  • We are often no more comfortable with the concept of humility than people in Jesus' day. What does humility mean to you? How could it be a virtue in an ongoing progressive movement?
  • How does this text challenge your assumptions about your work? Do we need to rethink how the netroots or blogosphere operate, for example?

Pee Ess: Another view from Theolog and next week's text: Philemon (all of it).


Tags: Bible Study, Luke 14 (all tags)

Permalink | 90 comments

  • Hitting weird buttons makes comments go bye. (18+ / 0-)

    Ugh, I hate it when I'm typing and that happens all of a sudden..  Was fairly far along, too.  (Grrr.)

    Anyway, back to topic.  This is the verse that's been haunting me all week:

    3But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

    It's one thing (and a good thing) to distribute soup at a food bank.  It's another thing to invite a homeless person to dinner in your home.  And that is the radical meaning of that message, no?  And my atheist mother is much better than pious me at doing that with some level of comfort.

    There's a perception that historical-critical analysis of the Bible weakens faith, and gives room for a lax sense of the ethics of the Bible - if it's just what people make up, the reasoning goes, that gives you room to what you want, rather than what God or Jesus commands.  But ever since taking classes in college with John Dominic Crossan, a member of the infamous Jesus Seminar, I have a much deeper sense of just how stringent the demands of discipleship are.  Crossan taught me about the radicality of risk in the practices of Jesus - in a way that was less compromising than anything I've heard from the pulpit.  (Though I generally felt less of a gap between the theory and the practice in the church than in the academy.)  But that risk of inviting a homeless person into one's home and being transformed by the event seems to me to be the clearest place Jesus reveals God.

    But do I do this?  It is not hard to find homeless people in San Francisco.  Sometimes I buy them food, sometimes I avoid them, sometimes I deliberately ignore them, sometimes I give them money.  But this last week, when I gave a man the quarter he asked for, it only occurred to me a block later that I could have asked him if he wanted to come over for a cup of coffee, which I was about to brew to get my day started, anyway.  (He may very well have declined - but that would have been up to him, then.)  My mother has taken in homeless people on occasion, letting them live with her, or letting them sleep in her back yard, depending on her comfort level with the specific person.  She maintains her boundaries, and there often comes a time when she, rather than the other person, decides it's time for the arrangement to end.  But I have a harder time with stretching my boundaries quite that much.  So, who's closer to Jesus?  The atheist or the theologian?

    The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

    by dirkster42 on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:33:26 AM PDT

    • reply (14+ / 0-)

      It's one thing (and a good thing) to distribute soup at a food bank.  It's another thing to invite a homeless person to dinner in your home.  And that is the radical meaning of that message, no?

      I have a friend who rents a two bedroom apartment just to invite people to live with him for a short time... "radical Catholicism" as he calls it.

      Check out my blog http://www.faithfullyliberal.com

      by Peace to all on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:37:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • It takes practice. (15+ / 0-)

      I lived for a year in a home where we did take in homeless people - we let it be known that, among other things, you could always stop at our house and have a sandwich. I got used to it as time went on, but I was never fully comfortable with it.

      A good place to start might be to go to the soup kitchen and sit down and eat with some of the folks, rather than just serve them.

      • Comfortable. (14+ / 0-)

        Just thinking aloud here....  Maybe we should not value  our comfort so highly?  We use the term to mean "at ease," and I wonder about it.  

        But I think your suggestion an excellent one.  That was precisely what made me feel most uncomfortable when I was actively helping cook, deliver and serve food to a shelter for homeless families.  It was Us and Them, and somehow what is usually a service role in our society felt strange (in a way that it didn't when I'd worked in a restaurant).  Deliverer and server of food is a powerful role, psychologically ("bring home the bacon...") and there was a distance between us and them.  

        We imposed nothing on them; they were used to church groups that would come, serve and deliver a grace before dining.  As UUs we weren't even going to impose that grace--and when they asked once, I simply told the woman who asked that she was welcome to.  No strings, just here to help, here to feed.

        Maybe that's the problem.  No strings.  Not in the sense above, which I disapprove of... but in the sense of ties.  No ties.  None at all. Just people parachuting in assistance (with or without the prayer pre-dining), and people left.  But these aren't hungry cattle in a blizzard being airdropped feed.  They're human beings.  They're us.  In these cases--mine and the biblical ones--they're our community, our society.  In ours, they're part of We The People, and to have no ties, no common ground... is simply wrong.  Wrong in many ways. There may well be nothing more fundamental in connecting people than to sit and share food.  Not just provide it, to share it.  That is, after all, communion, in its most basic, biological form.

        In denying it, we damage them, and we damage us, and we damage our society.

        Which makes me no more comfortable....

        The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

        by ogre on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:04:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Great answer, Ogre (9+ / 0-)

          They're human beings.  They're us.

          Well, exactly. I think that's also the message of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" parable. The rich man's sin was not so much his wealth, per se, but that he never bothered to recognize the humanity of Lazarus; never acknowledged his solidarity with him.

          Preach the Gospel every day. If Necessary, use words. - St. Francis of Asissi

          by mftalbot on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:53:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • Absolutely. (9+ / 0-)

          The invitation here is to go beyond formalities to actually forging a relationship with people who are usually outcasts in our society. That's not easy to do, and it takes real work for most of us. I suspect that it might have actually been easier in some ways for people in Jesus' time - they probably knew everybody's name, at least. In some ways, we're even more separated these days.

          • In some ways? (8+ / 0-)

            I seriously doubt that people have been more separated.  We're so desperate for contact that all the normal features of human societies of the past have been knocked down in an attempt to get to some contact.

            Who refers to "Mr. so-and-so" and "Mrs. You-know-who" in common conversation any more?  Honorifics are gone, or dying, and we eagerly abandon anything that used to be used to keep some distance between us... back when we lived in each other's pockets.

            I mean, I would only refer to Rev. Schulz in the most intentional and self-conscious way, intentionally highlighting the formal for a reason.  This is human contact we're talking about.  It's about as crucial to us as air or water.  We're pack animals... who've deprived ourselves of pack....

            But I digress.

            You're right.  The guy standing by the freeway exit asking for money with a sign reading "Homeless, please help" would have been a human being with an identity and a name in most cases in the past.

            The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

            by ogre on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:20:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        • Solidarity (5+ / 0-)

          I think you're exactly right about communion and being with--after all, compassion means to 'suffer with' not 'to pity.' And that's actually what I took from dirkster's original comment--it's easier and convenient to throw money at the homeless, and yes, extremely important to work for policies that actually help to alleviate the problem, but those approaches have the drawback of removing us from the suffering of other people, and allow us to remain aloof. And suffering with, being in communion with, recognizing the humanity of, is possibly as important than meeting people's physical needs.

          This is exactly why my parish, in developing a mission project in Appalachia, chose to do it slightly differently than the usual 'descend on the town like a blizzard, fix what you can, and move on' approach that many groups seem to adopt. Our approach is based on community--we adopted a particular town, and have been returning to that town for 10 years now. We don't set the agenda for what needs to be done--the community center there sets the agenda (after all, they know their own needs best), and we supply the money and labor to accomplish it. We have community meals every day; we play together, eat together, laugh and pray together, and we have many of the same people making the trip each year.

          And the result is that these people are no longer 'them'--they're 'us'--they're friends, and neighbors. We have come to trust and understand each other, which makes us better advocates. We are no longer reaching across a divide to them, but are now on the same side, all working together.

          Good patriots carry on a lover's quarrel with their country, a reflection of God's lover's quarrel with all the world.--William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

          by Zoskie on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:39:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • In the last years, (5+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            musing85, ogre, Quotefiend, StarWoman, Zoskie

            this

            it's... important to work for policies that actually help to alleviate the problem, but those approaches have the drawback of removing us from the suffering of other people, and allow us to remain aloof.

            has been a bit of a challenge to me, insofar as I've seen that perception, fair or not, used against general liberal social welfare approaches to government.  Perhaps some of that is related to the fact that many Americans have a stronger sense of "The Government" as something "Other" than real-live communities, rather than being a function of those communities, an enabler of those communities, and responsible to those communities.

            The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

            by dirkster42 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Yeah (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              musing85, ogre, Quotefiend, dirkster42

              Obviously I'm in favor of the social welfare approach to government, and I do see those programs as a function of actual community. I think, actually, that advocacy requires a deep commitment and sense of community.

              But, possibly because I've spent a lot of time in contact with upper-middle-class teen-agers, I sometimes see charitable organizations to be a buffer that keeps people from actually experiencing other people as people. I've seen kids suggest, as 'service projects,' having a bake sale and giving the money to a charity. Nothing wrong with that, but hanging with your friends and selling cookies to your relatives is not really serving anyone, and misses the point. It's easier and more comfortable to simply write a check to an organization--that doesn't require you to examine your perceptions of why people are homeless or out of work or poor. It doesn't force you to recognize the common humanity we share.

              Echoing in my mind is Scrooge:

              "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation?...I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

              It is not, of course, either a social welfare government, or private charities, or anything else, which prevent us from recognizing the humanity of the homeless--it's our own fear of the other, and that's what we need to overcome.

              Good patriots carry on a lover's quarrel with their country, a reflection of God's lover's quarrel with all the world.--William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

              by Zoskie on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    • This atheist admires your mother (16+ / 0-)

      but would have trouble emulating her.  I try to make a point of giving change to whomever asks, but a thought experiment prompted by PD's question lead me to a similar point as you: if I showed the moral fortitude to invite a homeless person home for a meal, then how can I ask him/her to leave?  Especially if it's a dinner which ends later in the evening?  Surely it would be cruel to drive them back to an underpass for their shelter.

      The question would not be so hard... I was going to write, "were it not for my 17 month old daughter," but that maybe seems to be the wrong way to think of it; should it be: The question should not be so hard because of the values my 17 month old daughter might learn?  Perhaps this second formulation will be more obvious/less difficult to me once she is 4 years old?  It is a tension between wanting to provide her physical security and wanting to help her humanity flourish.  It really shouldn't be much of a question; I just need to resolve internally that the tension is a false dilemma.

      Then there are my embarrassingly facile thoughts as to what the neighbors would think.  It would not be an issue if there were already homeless people in my neighborhood, I think, but I can't imagine being very popular bringing in homeless who are not otherwise there.  It's a stupid, classist, comformist mental/ethical block, but it's there and doesn't do me any good pretending it's not.  The "kingdom people" in my neighborhood are the gardners and housekeepers; it's not precisely the same, but I could invite them to my table.

    • in re: comments going bye (9+ / 0-)

      Ugh, I hate it when I'm typing and that happens all of a sudden..

      I request that comments posted to the front page article from last week be unlocked so that contributors may retrieve  writing posted before the lock-up.

      PD?  Thank you.  I was writing directly to the comment window and don't have a copy on file.

    • I've been musing on this lately (14+ / 0-)

      because of a new co-worker of mine. This woman and her husband are foster parents for two mentally disabled men--and have been for 17 years. Which means, since they had their own babies, they've been sharing their home and their lives with these men.

      And I keep thinking about it, and thinking about it. It seems to be to be what Christianity is about--welcoming the outcast--and yet, I have to say, it's beyond anything I've ever considered doing. I too have a hard time stretching my boundaries in some ways, and I'm in awe of the way these people are living out their faith. And I'm humbled, as I realize how much further I need to go...

      Good patriots carry on a lover's quarrel with their country, a reflection of God's lover's quarrel with all the world.--William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

      by Zoskie on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:45:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • darn you (16+ / 0-)

      Just as I was going to post something easy to digest, musing about the "places of honor" in life that we are so quick to grab, and thinking (not impressively) about things like good parking spots - you have to go and suggest that we actually invite poor people into our homes and get to know them.

      Why am I sweating all of a sudden?

      • I know how some people (12+ / 0-)

        end up on the street. Not having the money for medication to control delusional schizophrenia is one way to become unemployable and just too damn scary to get invitations to dinner.

        I think it's important that instead of tossing quarters at the problem we help support other solutions to the problem that have a chance of getting people to feel productive and good about themselves again. That's why I support the street papers project that I linked to here earlier. It gets people to help themselves and regain their pride and give them a chance to move on to better things. One of my favorite vendors has moved to Greece for a year where he's working construction jobs.

        I really miss him.

        I think talking with these forgotten people is perhaps just as important as feeding and sheltering them.

        "Only boring people get bored" - Mary E. Hirschler

        by Marko on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:50:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • resurrection stories (4+ / 0-)

          I think you touch on a sense in which "resurrection of the righteous" can have meaning for all.

          I'm always seeking that true spirit that lends to my giving a way that the recipient may establish or re-establish their dignity.  Becuase it is on the basis of that renewed dignity and humanity that something positive may be resurrected in them - something that has "survival value."

          instead of tossing quarters at the problem we help support other solutions to the problem that have a chance of getting people to feel productive and good about themselves again... to help themselves and regain their pride and give them a chance to move on to better things.

          All good, except I would replace "their pride" with "their divine-human dignity."

          14And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous

    • dirkster's comment and the responses (10+ / 0-)

      about starting small and working up to being more inclusive of the marginalized made me think:

      How about starting with people who are marginalized in other ways? By which I mean (and here I am probably preaching to the converted) starting with people who are marginalized by their faith. "Here at my table are my Pagan friend, my Muslim friend, my Buddhist friend..."  It does sound like maybe just having dinner with people you already know and are comfortable with, but maybe it helps to expand the borders of "marginalized". With friends like these at your table, it become easier to invite those Jesus speaks about in the text.

      Hopefully this idea has come across the way I mean it.

      Thanks and blessings!

    • A woman my wife works with (4+ / 0-)

      was raised Catholic - but fell way away from God.

      Then, she comes alive for Christ again, and proceeds to simply - on her own with her own dime - start making soup, bread etc and heading down under a bridge in Portland and feeding the homeless. God said do it so she did it.

      Then, (single good looking woman living alone) begins to put a series of homeless men in her basement spare bedroom. This allows them to clean-up, rest up, and look for work. She clothes them. They stay until they find a job and can move out (or stop progressing toward that). Then, she picks the next one.

      This was a "baby" Christian who just took the Word of God as a command instead of a suggestion. One of my heroes fer sure.

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:15:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Yes, absolutely. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        musing85, Quotefiend

        I've seen such examples as well.

        But does that invalidate the faith of those who find a "command" understanding of ethics and moral imperatives unconvincing?

        The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

        by dirkster42 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:26:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Can you (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          musing85, Quotefiend, dirkster42

          elaborate on this comment? I'm not sure I'm understanding precisely what you're saying.

          Good patriots carry on a lover's quarrel with their country, a reflection of God's lover's quarrel with all the world.--William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

          by Zoskie on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:40:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Well, (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            musing85, Quotefiend, Zoskie

            it's kind of part of an ongoing conversation, really.

            But my comment pointed out how historical-critical work on the Bible, which starts with a kind of suspicion that various human interests permeate the text, can actually deepen one's sense of the kind of discipleship that's asked for, and Fleetguy came back with an counter-example, based on a different kind of understanding of the text, without making an explicit statement as to whether or not he took the point I was making.

            The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

            by dirkster42 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:48:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Okay (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              musing85, Quotefiend, dirkster42

              I'll stay out of it then, since I'm not up on the back story. I just didn't see this in specifically divine command ethics terms, and so was a little puzzled.

              Good patriots carry on a lover's quarrel with their country, a reflection of God's lover's quarrel with all the world.--William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

              by Zoskie on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            • Actually (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Quotefiend, dirkster42

              I was staying away from the Higher Criticism part of your comment - you would have to explain to me how that heightens the sense of discipleship.

              I was happy that Crossen still has that sense of the profound duties of discipleship - but I do not see how his thinking Jesus' body might have ended up in a dump and eaten by dogs actually makes the sense of discipleship higher than someone who thinks Jesus was God, the Bible true, and Christ resurrected.

              SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

              by JCHFleetguy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:28:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Perhaps I didn't understand you. (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                musing85, JCHFleetguy, Quotefiend

                Because I did take your penultimate sentence as a dig at the Higher Criticism part of my comment.

                I don't really see it as "either/or" or "higher/lower" in terms of discipleship in relation to textual understanding or theological assumptions.  It's a separate variable.

                What I did find in Crossan's classes was that there was a clarity about what was going on in the ministry of Jesus as a practice that had revolutionary potential, and that that potential resided entirely in a willingness to take up very difficult practices of discipleship.

                It's been a very long time since I've thought about Jesus and the NT on a regular basis, so details are fuzzy.

                The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

                by dirkster42 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:08:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • which penultimate line (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dirkster42

                  about the "baby" - actually I was feeding off

                  I have a much deeper sense of just how stringent the demands of discipleship are.

                  Being a disciple means to follow - or in more Christian terms: showing your love for Christ by obeying Him (as He did by obeying His father) - probably taking up your cross in order to do that.

                  I agree with Crossen about the stringent demands of discipleship - ignoring the Higher Criticism part was in ignoring what authority Crossen sees making those demands on him - and I would probably, considering my day today, prefer to continue to ignore that. I will leave myself agreeing with Father Crossen. :-)

                  SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                  by JCHFleetguy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:36:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  • Kewl. (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    musing85, JCHFleetguy

                    "command rather than suggestion" was the part I was probably reading things into.  But it's all good.

                    (It's "Crossan," btw.)

                    The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

                    by dirkster42 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:40:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • Oh that (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      dirkster42

                      no - that was a dig at how all Christians tend to view God's direction - not just Crossan. We all have this idea from time to (frequent) time that things like "love your neighbor as yourself" are just suggestions and not orders - especially if we might have to change what we want to do at that time :-)

                      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:51:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  • This text (10+ / 0-)

    gets at a large portion of our cultural problems.  Unfortunately it is about who you know that often times gets you a job or gets you ahead in the world.

    This is true of MSM and too often of the blogosphere.  So...

    What would it mean to have a media driven by "the kingdom people" instead of a "return on investment"?

    Is an important question.  Stories get into the media with the consultants pitching the stories to reporters and editors.  This happens while the "kingdom people" don't have a lobbyist or a consultant on their side.  Their stories are swept under the rug or saved for "the slow news day".  

    But this is where progressives and people of faith come into play.  At least it is in my mind.  We are to be the people who strive to help them (if they are willing) and to be the consultants pitching the stories and to be the lobbyists for more progressive policies.

    Check out my blog http://www.faithfullyliberal.com

    by Peace to all on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:43:27 AM PDT

  • Media by the kingdom people (12+ / 0-)

    We've got a local version of a street paper. The homeless are my kingdom people.

    I remember my grandmother telling me about feeding the hobos that came through her town in the 30's and 40's.

    That's the mission: For us all to do our part to fill some empty bellies and provide what comfort we can. I don't have much to give, but I buy the magazines and talk and joke with the sellers. I donate clothes and toys and occasionally time to charities.

    I hope to spend a day or two at a refugee camp teaching kids and their parents how to enjoy the distraction of learning to work with clay.

    And we've got to work to change the system that failed these kingdom people. I'm too much of a skeptic to think that the system will change much in my lifetime. Perhaps, a bit at a time, one person at a time, our values will change and money will quit talking and just shut up finally.

     title=I like the message of humility in the story. I'm always one to stand around awkwardly while everyone else seats themselves. I'm perfectly willing to be last and least if it also means being polite. Occasionally I'll have the bright idea to ask about the seating arrangements though...

    "Only boring people get bored" - Mary E. Hirschler

    by Marko on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:56:59 AM PDT

  • They're not just eyeing one another up (12+ / 0-)

    Jesus is desperately trying to get this crowd to engage in a discussion with him. The part that the lectionary skips over is the first instance. There's a sick man in the room, probably a plant by some of the people invited to the banquet, and they want to know whether Jesus is going to break the Sabbath and cure him. So Jesus asks them whether it's OK to do that or not--and gets no response. So he goes ahead and does it. Still no response, so on to the next demonstration/parable.

    Effectively, Jesus is trying to get these people to tell him about how they order their moral universe. Their rule seems to be "I'll do whatever it takes for me and mine, but everybody else must abide by the letter of the law." And that, of course, is hypocritical. As is their fixation on their honor.

    I mean, look at the scenario Jesus sets up with the banquet seating. Do you think anyone in the audience would ever have done what Jesus proposed? They're probably too full of themselves to do so, but even if they went ahead and did it, what does that say about them except that they're so tied up with their need for public honor that they're willing to adopt a very anti-social (in terms of the mores of the day, anyway) strategy to ensure that (a) they get the honor they feel they deserve and (b) that other people notice it.

    This is what the psychology folks call an "external locus of control." The other guests at this banquet are driven primarily by what other people think of them, instead of being true to themselves--and if they won't be true to themselves, they can't then be true to anyone else, in Shakespeare's familiar syllogism. So it is little surprise that they're not interested in caring for the poor and the sick and the lame and the marginalized.

    • It would depend a lot (9+ / 0-)

      On whether these particular Pharisees were the hook- nosed, swarthy- skinned hypocritical fat cats of the Oberammergau Passion Play ... or whether they were Pharisaic Rabbis ... --  and if so whether of the House (school) of Hillel or of Shammi  .

      It is equally reasonable to presume that the host of the dinner was of Hillel's party ... therefore a sympathetic colleague of Jesus ... who had invited Him to the gathering  (which seems to have taken on some of the aspects of a Greek symposium, tsk tsk) -- for the express purpose of re-visiting the "Healing on Shabbat" issue that Hillel would have brought from Babylonia a generation before.

      Of course, there would have been more 'this or that' concerns for Pharisees:  Of COURSE "Rabbi" Jesus could heal on Sabbath: the fact that he HAD done it proved (miraculously) that he had been AUTHORIZED to do it.  (As the miracle of the Lights demonstrated that Judah Maccabbee had been divinely authorized to fight against the Syrian Greek occupiers on Sabbath.) But, could 'DOCTOR' Jesus heal on a Sabbath ?  

      (Preparing for this discussion I found out how much I do not know about the dating of Talmudic discourse and consensus.  Eventually it would be decided that the "Doctor," although a Rabbi, not only COULD, but OUGHT to minister to seriously ill people (holim)  on Sabbath -- not because 'most people would want to' as Jesus argues -- but for reasons having to do with Judah Maccabee and the holiness of the Sabbath.   How far the Talmudists had come along that path in the first half of the first Century -- I don't know with any certainty.)

      • Except that it's far from clear (3+ / 0-)

        that the people at this banquet would have recognized Jesus as a rabbi. At least on the strength of the Gospel accounts (and obviously there is likely to have been some bias there), wherever Jesus went and whatever he did, he was greeted by curious and indignant refrains of "By what authority....?"

        Also, Jesus explicitly rejects the justification-after-the-fact theory you're quoting here. People who only come to believe in him because of the signs and wonders he performs are the low-hanging fruit--and the fastest to fall away. This discourse is most evident in John's Gospel, where the emphasis is on knowing and believing, not on seeing.

        • You understand where Rabbinical (5+ / 0-)

          Authority comes from ?  

          Although Prophetic authority is of G-d, and therefore subject to a lot of question during the life of the prophet, if the hearer doesn't love the message ...

          Rabbinical authority comes from one of two sources or both ...  acceptance by other Rabbis  or/and acknowledgment by a congregation of 10 or more adult male Jews.

          LUKE 4:14,15
          14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about
          15 And he taught in their synagogues being glorified by all

          In the chapters thereafter Jesus and his disciples are wandering about the countryside addressing multitudes, healing many, working miracles and engaging in disputation with various Pharisees  

          By Chapter 14 ... Jesus has certainly established a reputation -- if for no other reason than the men who have been confronting him publicly have been complaining to their colleagues about his wizenheimer 'draches.

          So why is He in the house of "one  of the Chief Pharisees" Luke 14:1 ?  The man with dropsy (14:2) is the 'charity case' ... is it more likely Jesus was ANOTHER opportunity for pious hospitality .. or more likely that this was another 'test.'

          14:2And behold there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy
          14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and the Pharisees, saying Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?   (Doesn't it appear that Jesus and NOT the Pharisaic host posed the long-standing question)
          14:4And they held their peace, and he took him and healed him and let him go.

          (Perhaps the dropsical man was not a 'guest' after all?  But since the man was then 'let go', he was clearly  NOT  "holeh"  (so sick that he could not rise from his bed) and it is only holim that Jewish physicians are allowed to treat on Sabbath,)

          Now, still unasked Jesus explains his authority for performing this healing.  There might have been any number of explanations.

          1. He could have said that the performance of Mitzvot (good deeds/fulfillment of commandments) are most appropriate to the Sabbath.
          1. He could have drawn the distinction between healing as the work of physician (which he was not) and healing accomplished through prayer and blessing, acts which ARE, of course, permitted on Sabbath.
          1. He might have cited the Maccabeian doctrine: in a rightious cause even the Sabbath gives way to neccessity  (I'm not at all sure this idea had yet been expounded,  though by Medieval times it would be Black Letter midrash.)

          Instead he says

          14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit and will not straigtway pull him out on the sabbath day.

          Which is interesting.  

          The Pharisee Hillel, a generation earlier,  might have made a  case that IF the ox or ass was essential to the owner making a living ... OR if a passerby rescued someone else's livestock as an  UNCOMPENSATED act of kindness to the owner (or to the animal) ... THEN the act might be justified by necessity or charity.

          But Hillel's great rival Shammi might well have argued (although I don't believe he ever did) that if the owner could afford the loss of the ox or ass, the holiness of the Sabbath forbids anything remotely resembling 'work'  (so much so  that much later European Rabbis would argue that a literate man may not may not urinate in the snow because it is too much like 'writing' ... whereas a woman is forbidden the same act because it is too much like 'plowing.')

          If we understand Luke's use of "lawyers" to mean Sadducee Rabbis, who were extremely legalistic and literalist, it is strange that they, at least, did not protest Jesus' "Which of you ... " argument -- since of the assembled Rabbis, the Sadducees would have at least CLAIMED that they would never violate the Sabbath with manual labor.

          I see this episode as one of the many traps the Pharisees are supposed to have laid for Jesus.** The people in the room would not have been deciding whether signs and wonders would convert them to belief in Jesus as Divine,  though they may well have been concerned if He was going to be more like pacifist Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai or Zealot Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph. They were taking the measure of a well-known, Wonder Working Rabbi and popular Preacher of their own School ... (there being more than a few of those wandering the countryside that year) who might be a doctrinally orthodox colleague and ally, or a heretic, Hellenizer, or misleader of some kind.

          Given that Jesus then pretty much takes over as keynote speaker of this particular symposium ... the Committee must have decided He was on Tenure Track as far as they were concerned.

          **Eleven hundred years later Maimonides would have similar problems, with much the same people.) Here too, is a matter of interpretation of motives:  posing and answering difficult, even dangerous, questions to each other is "what talmudists do."  It's part of the training ... it's how the scholars sort out their hierarchies and reputations.

          • That may be historically accurate (0 / 0)

            But it isn't reflective of the stories that are told in the Gospel. Throughout the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of whom are believed to have shared at least one major source in common) there is a constant refrain of questioning Jesus's authority and the source of his power.

            Consider the following:

            Matthew 9:34 and 12:24, where some of the Pharisees say that Jesus casts out demons by the power of the ruler of the demons.

            Matthew 12:10 (Mark 3:1-6, Luke 6:6-11), where we have another instance of curing on the Sabbath--and where the Jewish leaders directly ask Jesus (according to the evangelists, with the express intent of testing him to see what his answer would be) whether it is lawful to cure on the Sabbath.

            Matthew 13:54-55 (Mark 6:1, Luke 4:16-30), where Jesus goes back to Nazareth, preaches in the synagogue, and everyone remarks on the power and authority of his teaching--and immediately discounts it because he's the carpenter's son, they know him and his family.

            Matthew 16:1 (Mark 8:11-13), where the Pharisees and Sadducees come to Jesus and ask him to work a miracle in their sight, again, according to the evangelists, with the explicit intention of holding it against him if he does so.

            Matthew 21:23 (Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8), where the chief priests and the elders come to Jesus in the Temple and explicitly demand that he tell them by what authority he performs the works he does, and who gave that authority to him.

            • Hmmm (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              musing85

              That may be historically accurate, But it isn't reflective of the stories that are told in the Gospel.

              Why do you suppose that is?

              I mean, what was the point of crafting these stories in such a way that the social context presented differed from the actual context in this way?

              And how do you suppose these stories would have resonated differently with hearers who were familiar with the historically accurate background?

              Are we already seeing the stories being told from the point of view of a community that feels, hm, somewhat self-righteous? Or might these stories be told in this way to encourage a community whose bona fides are being challenged?

              Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

              by StarWoman on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:28:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Somewhere in the middle (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                StarWoman

                I don't think they'd gotten to self-righteous by the time the Gospels were written, but neither do I think it's just trying to say "Hey, we were right about this guy," either. I suspect at least part of it is bitterness at being expelled from the synagogues, coupled with 20/20 hindsight. The Gospel writers knew how the story came out, after all, and they wanted to underline the danger that comes in being too skeptical--because remember, at the time these stories were being edited/revised/condensed and written down, there was an expectation that Jesus was going to be coming back any minute now--so make up your mind and fast.

  • It seemed to me (12+ / 0-)

    that I fed half the walking appetites on Hollywood Boulevard my last 5 years in LA.  

    They were so grateful for having a place they could hang out where the adults didn't always yell at them.

    There was many a time I was very glad that my firstborn's head is nowhere near as soft as her heart.

  • A radical interpretation (11+ / 0-)

    Seems to me it can viewed as a critique of our cherished election system to pick our leaders and agenda.  The "majority wins" voting systems entrenches elite class and shuts out the marginalized class; and has proved to be too easily manipulated with money and technology.  I think what Jesus is getting at here is that we need sytems that guarantee everyone have access to power and, at least, a voice and participation; ie an invitation.  But how?  

    Living in intentional community taught me a good lesson.  We governed ourselves by consensus, not majority.  I quickly discovered that consensus decision making, while taking more time, was extremely profound: Over time, I found myself full of faith that at the group will come to the right decision, even if it wasn't the outcome I was advocating.  I found myself trusting the "group" to decide things, and not feeling pressure to force my agenda.  

    I think the "blessing" Jesus refers to is the benefits derived, here on this world, of inviting the participation of all segments of the community.  If only a small segment of the community is governing, it loses out on wisdom from the entire group.  Equal participation by all is thus necessary.  

    A good metaphor is a trial jury.  Do we have faith in a jury verdict if the jury is not representative of the community?  So how do we pick trial juries: by lottery.  Hey, maybe we should pick our leaders by lottery and set up minimum qualifications that don't exclude large segments of the community.  

    I say anyone who wants to be a politician should be immediately disqualified.  Get selected, serve your time and do your duty, then move on.  Do the same with judges.  

    Everyone should be invited to the table to eat, drink, and talk.  

    • I've seen the argument before... (8+ / 0-)

      that representatives to the legislature should be selected by lot.

      I wonder if the summons would be received with the same joy we receive jury duty summons.

      The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

      by ogre on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:13:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Hear, hear (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Quotefiend, dirkster42, Festina Lente

      I think the "blessing" Jesus refers to is the benefits derived, here on this world, of inviting the participation of all segments of the community.  If only a small segment of the community is governing, it loses out on wisdom from the entire group.  Equal participation by all is thus necessary

      This is something the religious right is not getting.  Evangelicals are often so wrapped up in the fact that they feel changed that they try to fit everyone else into their unique experience of being saved - an experience which has usually been morally compromised by their fear of hell.

    • Majority vs consensus (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dirkster42

      Living in intentional community taught me a good lesson.  We governed ourselves by consensus, not majority.  I quickly discovered that consensus decision making, while taking more time, was extremely profound: Over time, I found myself full of faith that at the group will come to the right decision, even if it wasn't the outcome I was advocating.  I found myself trusting the "group" to decide things, and not feeling pressure to force my agenda.  

      Thank you for sharing this.

      I really, really, really feel strongly about decision-making by consensus rather than majority, especially in a church setting.

      Unfortunately, most people seem to think it's just impractical. :sigh:

      Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

      by StarWoman on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:30:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • What Harry Potter Has to Say (12+ / 0-)

    I'm still currently chewing my way through the Harry Potter series as a run-up to tackling Deathly Hallows.  (No, I still haven't read that one yet).  As it happens, I'm right in the middle of Half-Blood Prince, reading a chapter about Professor Slughorn and his "Slug Club".

    (Hang on, I'll get to the point in a moment)

    Slughorn likes to collect people.  He cultivates friendships with students whom he feels have potential to go on and become imporant.  They become part of his inner circle and they benefit from his advice and from the connections he's made with other important people.  Slughorn is only really interested in students who might someday repay his friendship with perks and such when they in turn become Important People.  Harry finds him friendly, but is a little bit creeped out by him.

    Slughorn would undoubtably be boggled at the advice Jesus gives in the Luke passage.  Do a favor for someone incapable of returning it?  How absurd!  Or perhaps he would leap ahead, "Aha...!  Reward in Heaven!  Right!" (wink-wink), and miss the whole point.

    I wonder how Jesus got invited to that pharisee's house?  Perhaps that leader of the pharisees was also a Slughorn, showing hospitality to a popular new teacher who is generating a lot of buzz, in order to benefit from his reflected glory and to make himself seem more important.  And perhaps that was the reason for this particular saying on this particular occasion.

  • The homeless and poor may be the easy ones (14+ / 0-)

    The kind of radical hospitality that Jesus is describing goes beyond the soup kitchen and the kind word on the street.  To me, it’s all too easy these days to write a fat check from a soft pew cushion or to spend a pleasant day in Fellowship with my Sunday school class or women’s circle or youth group in a "service project" that does anything from working at a food shelter to packing flood buckets.

    All of these are good things, maybe even great.  But for me, it’s much, much harder to keep asking the prickly neighbor next door to join us for dinner once in awhile.  It’s even harder to stop from making catty comments about the more blue-collar, chain smoking parents I run into at school.

    Humility comes not just from getting down and dirty. Actual, physical ministering and providing succor to those truly in need is a Grace-filled event.  But so is managing to keep one’s cool with the irritating, gum-chewing teenage cashier or even with the wing-nut talking head on the TV.  

    People are marginalized today not just by economics and by society, but by our own, oh-so-educated progressive attitude.  I find the kind of humility Jesus is modeling here to be very convicting:  a guard against self-righteousness.  

    One of my first experiences of the pitfalls of becoming too self-congratulatory about "helping the poor" came a few summers ago when we hosted a young girl from Belarus, from an area still hard-hit by the Chernobyl disaster.  I pictured myself as this great American fairy-godmother, sweeping in to bring poor Cinderella to the ball of our household’s TV’s and hamburgers and soccer games.   But instead, the child was difficult.  She, like kids everywhere, turned her nose up at the unfamiliar food.  She seemed unimpressed with the toys, the computers, the gadgets, lighting up only when she saw her fellow exchange students or for the trips to our local pool.  What she needed—what she needed from me—was unconditional love, not the stuff I felt so smug about providing.

    I’m reminded of this each Christmas when I help out with our church’s program to get some gifts and special dinner items to struggling families.  Sure, dong the material work of buying/wrapping/driving/delivering is crucial; but the real test comes when I arrive at a house where the baby is playing in dirty diapers while the mom watches a big-screen TV.  Finding a way to be in service without being judgmental is my own personal demon to wrestle.

    Finding and acknowledging—and truly feeding and clothing-- the Kingdom people is one step.  Making room—day after day-- in the banquet hall of our hearts may be the hardest part of all, though.

    The antidote to bad religion is good faith.

    by Deborah Brown on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:03:26 PM PDT

  • My first responses (10+ / 0-)

    Questions for Discussion

    1. Fred Craddock calls the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind "kingdom people," since in Luke's telling, they are those who are most welcome at the heavenly banquet in the Kingdom of God (a standard trope in Luke's gospel). Who do you think the "kingdom people" in your world would be?

    From my progressive POV, the crippled, the lame and the blind are not "kingdom people" insofar as they are lame, crippled or blind: these conditions are incidental to whatever condition puts them in the "kingdom people" category.  I don't deny that they might be strongly correlative to being a "kingdom person," but any such correlation is actually a spurious correlation due to some third variable or that their condition caused a third thing which in turn makes them "kingdom people."  Who do I see as the "kingdom people" of today?  Yes, the poor and the homeless, but especially the illegal immigrant; the ex-con, seeking to reintegrate him/herself, but especially sex offenders trying to do the same; the culturally non-Western of modest and mundane means; the mentally ill; the physically, mentally,