"When you are invited to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honour, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place."
Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind. (Luke 14:8-9;12-13)
Occasionally there's something in the Bible that is so out of our experience that we can't relate to it. Like this story of the sharp-elbowed wedding guests.
We all know that the British have solved this problem. The most important person at a wedding feast is, after all, the one who does the seating arrangements. Then a nice tasteful name card at each place - and maybe a seating map pinned up, if it's a big do - job's a good 'un. No need for anyone to be humiliated by being moved down the pecking order because a Love Island contestant just turned up.
But, of course, we still know this experience of people demanding their rights - and occasionally not getting them. The most famous recently being Carlton Funderburke, the Kansas City pastor who accused his congregation of being "cheap" because they didn't buy him a nice watch.
I think there's an end-times edge to this little narrative of Jesus's. It's about humility, sure. But that wedding feast is the kingdom of heaven. Maybe we're all taking our places now. Who is the one who's elevated themselves above their true seat when we find out about the heavenly table arrangements at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb? And who does Jesus want sitting next to him?
There's an old joke about a good, honest person who goes to heaven - I forget the original details, and I suspect it's not a true story, so let's say they're a shop assistant. And she gets to heaven, and St Peter checks her off the list, and quietly ushers her in.
And she's wandering around gazing round the place in awe, and over at the pearly gates a limo drives through and there's fireworks and bands and cheering and she goes back to St Peter and says, "Who's that?"
And he says, "it's a bishop."
"Typical," she says, "even up here there's the same old hierarchy. The bishops get all the fuss, and the ordinary people are worth less."
And St Peter replies, "You don't understand. Thing is, this place is full of people like shop assistants. But we very rarely get a bishop."
Which brings us on to the second passage.
At first glance, my problem with this reading….
Is Jesus basically saying we should look after those less fortunate than ourselves because in the long term we get rewarded? So instead of your instant payback on earth, you get a much better one in heaven?
Is the Kingdom of Heaven just an eschatological Stamford Marshmallow Experiment, where delaying gratification leads to better rewards in the afterlife?
If so, I don't want to go. If I’m going to look after someone, or help someone else, I want to do it for their sake, not for a payback in this world or the next.
But Jesus is telling us - I think - to raise the level of how we interact with people above what is purely transactional. If we give to someone who can't give back, if we aren't looking for thanks or repayment - we're setting ourselves free from the normal rules of our world. We're also acting in the same way as God, who made a whole universe out of nothing and, when that wasn't even, gave it God's Son as well.
And there's another saying of Jesus's where he tells us that whatever we do for those in need - we also do for him. When we feed the hungry, visit the lonely, then we are growing in our love of, our relationship with Jesus - we're recognising Jesus in those around us.
Entering the Kingdom of Heaven isn't a transactional relationship. It's a personal one. If we give without worrying about the reward, then our reward will be great - because we are drawing closer to God, who gives us all things - including his Son.
It is about position. In the WO & Sgts Mess or even the Officers Mess people were seated for formal dinners in Rank/Status order in accordance with their promotion seniority date. The Seating Plans were organised by the President of the Mess Committee who had to get it right or one or two extra duties might have come their way. But people were very concerned to protect their status and were prepared to discreetly kick up a stink if they were offended by being seated lower down the table than someone junior to them, even for a day or so. In the WO & Sgts Mess the RSM had the final say as President of the Mess as in the Officers Mess the CO would have the final say, although the Adjutant might exercise that on his behalf. Putting it into context the best place to be seated was at the most Junior end of the table, where more fun was to be had, as you have not yet really learned the rules of the game and let your hair down a bit. It was a learning and development exercise in training you with manners and etiquette and how to behave. Learning to keep a sharp eye out for a frown or raised eyebrow from the President of the Mess, and trying to avoid the attention that could draw a few extra duties if you were not careful. Not sure how that fits into Jesus' banquet, but those lower down the totem pole, would eventually end up at the top, hopefully remembering their time at the bottom, and maintaining a sense of proportion when the less experienced made a mistake in conduct or etiquette. A bit like the Church of England, in that it was described as "Character Forming" while the CofE calls if Formation. I actually think that the former was a better guide to formation than the CofE example.
ReplyDelete