Reflection on Life’s Aspirations and Avocations

What does the expression “church membership” bring to your mind?  The expression carries different meanings across Christian denominations, depending on their theology, governance, and ecclesial identity. For mainline Protestant denominations (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians) membership typically involves Baptism, Confirmation or profession of faith, and often, a formal joining ceremony. Members may be listed on membership rolls and such affords one voting privileges in congregational meetings and eligibility for leadership roles.

In Evangelical Churches (e.g. Baptists, Assemblies of God, or independent Bible churches) church membership is often voluntary, distinct from baptism (though baptism is usually a prerequisite). It involves a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ, believer’s baptism (by immersion), completion of a membership class, and a congregational vote or pastor’s approval. The emphasis is placed on active participation, accountability, and sometimes church discipline. Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches are similar to Evangelicals, but with more focus on the Holy Spirit’s work.

What about the Catholic Church? Church membership is not a voluntary affiliation but a sacramental reality; one becomes a member through Baptism with full communion via the Sacrament of Confirmation and participation in the Eucharist. There’s no formal “joining” ceremony later in life for baptized Catholics. There is OCIA for adults coming to the Church as either unbaptized or from other Christian traditions. Parish registration is sometimes called “membership” in practice, but it is administrative and not sacramental.

Continue reading

Seriousness of Commitment

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. These two parables are unique to Luke and are without parallel. Jesus draws attention to a simple observation: a prudent person would not begin a project until being sure it can be finished – neither a builder nor a king. In the first parable Jesus says, “Sit down and consider whether you can afford to follow me.” In the second he says, “Sit down and surmise whether you can afford to refuse my demands.”  In the same way, God has not entered a redemptive process without being prepared to complete it. Jesus did not set his face to Jerusalem (9:51) without knowing and being prepared for his own Passion.

The two parables move from the lesser to the greater. In the first, the threat is that of embarrassment before one’s peers and neighbors. In the second, the consequence is the defeat at the hands of an enemy. In continuing the movement to the even greater, the implication is that one’s network of family or simply membership in a religious tradition is inadequate to assure one’s status before God. What is required is fidelity to God’s only Son.

Continue reading

Carry One’s Cross

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. The expression carry his own cross is a metaphor of discipleship. In terms of dedication, one is to live as already condemned to death, “oblivious to the pursuit of noble status, find no interest in securing one’s future via future obligations from others or by stockpiling possessions, free to identify with Jesus in his dishonorable suffering” [Green, 566].

Many scholars interpret “carrying the cross” as a vivid metaphor for complete renunciation of self-will and self-preservation. Roman crucifixion was public, humiliating, and painful. In the Roman world, carrying one’s cross was literally the path to execution—a condemned man would carry the beam of his own instrument of death. So Jesus’ words suggest that following Him requires being willing to lose one’s life, ambitions, or status. It is a stark image suggesting to his followers that a disciple should expect to walk as Jesus did: a path of suffering, shame, and possible martyrdom.

Continue reading

Hating One’s Family?

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. Jesus’ command of love makes it unthinkable that he commands hating one’s family all the while commanding to love those we do not know and are even our enemy. As Culpepper [292] notes, one should understand the Semitic hyperbole always uses stark differences so that the contrast is more clearly seen. The term misein (hate) denotes attitudes and modes of action rather than emotions. The point is not how one feels towards one’s parents, but rather one’s effective attitude when it comes to the kingdom.” This becomes clearer in 16:13, “No servant can serve two masters, he will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”  This continues Luke 12:49-52 regarding division with the household caused by the proclamation of the reign of God.

Other scholars argue that “hate” is a Semitic expression meaning “love less” or “put in second place.” For instance: Genesis 29:30–31 says Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and in the next verse, Leah is said to be “hated.” This sense of “hate” aligns with Matthew 10:37: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…” — a softer but similar idea.

Continue reading

The Cost

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. Many scholars tag these verses as “The cost of discipleship.”  They are unique and peculiar to Luke, focusing on the total dedication necessary for the disciples of Jesus. It must be remembered that Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem and has already predicted his death; so too should the disciples be prepared to leave all behind and make their commitment to the journey that will unfold before them.

Joel Green [564] notes that there are “important topical connections between the current narrative unit and the preceding one. Particularly in Jesus’ story of the great banquet (vv 15–24), he had introduced the possibility that one’s ties to possessions and family might disqualify one from enjoying the feast. As Jesus turns to address the crowds traveling with him, he lists allegiance to one’s family network and the shackles that constitute one’s possessions as impediments to authentic discipleship. Albeit for a different audience, then, Jesus posits the necessity of a corresponding transformation of life in both instances. This conjunction of emphases reminds us that the new practices counseled by Jesus in vv 7–14 are not isolated behaviors but, from Luke’s perspective, must flow out of a transformed disposition, reflecting new commitments, attitudes, and allegiances. That is, the conversion that characterizes genuine discipleship is itself generative, giving rise to new forms of behavior.”

It is here among the crowds of people that Jesus continues to teach discipleship to would-be disciples. Jesus makes no attempt to lure them, rather he makes clear that the way is not easy. Several phases reoccur in these verses:

If any one comes to me [and does not] … he cannot be my disciple (v.26)|
Whoever does not … cannot be my disciple.” (v.27)
everyone of you who does … cannot be my disciple.” (v.33)

The three conditions laid down concern renouncing family ties that would prevent one from becoming a disciple, bearing one’s cross, and forsaking possessions.  Between the second and third sayings twin parables illustrate the folly of failing to consider the cost of an undertaking: the tower builder (vv.28-30) and the king going to war (vv.31-32). The form of the question points to the expected answer for each, “No one, of course” (cf. 11:5, 11; 14:5; 15:4, 17:7). Verse 33 is the conclusion: we must renounce all that keeps us from the fullness of discipleship. 


Image credit: Pexels | Tima Miroshnichenko | CC-BY

Context and Chosing…or not

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C. The gospel is from Luke 14:25-33. Here is the sequence of Sunday gospels in these Sundays of Ordinary Time. After having critiqued host and guests alike at the human banquet of the Pharisee, the Sunday choices for gospels passes over the description and invitation to the heavenly banquet

Luke’s Sunday Year C Reading

14:1-14 Honor and Humility at Table 22nd Sunday
14:15-24 Invitation to the Great Banquet passed over
14:25-33 The Cost of Discipleship 23rd Sunday
15:1-32 Parables of the Lost and Found 24th Sunday

In the gospel passage containing the invitation to the heavenly banquet, Jesus tells a parable about those who take a banquet invitation too lightly and because of their casual attitude lose their own right to a place at the table and are replaced by others. This echoes Jesus’ previous lament over Jerusalem (13:31-35). 

Continue reading

A final reflection

Alan Culpepper [287-88] offers these final thoughts

These are liberating words that can free us from the necessity of succeeding in our culture’s contests of power and esteem. They free us from over-under relationships and the attitudes and barriers they create, so that we may be free to create human community and enjoy the security of God’s grace.

Continue reading

Advice for the hosts

This coming Sunday is the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time.  In yesterday’s post we explored the cultural norms associated with invitations, banquets and places of honor as regards the invited guests.  Today we will continue that line of thought and consider Jesus’ advice to hosts.

Just as Jesus’ fellow guests had occupied themselves in normal, honor-seeking pursuits upon arrival at the meal, so Jesus’ host had followed ordinary conventions in putting together his invitation list. Invitations served as “currency in the marketplace of prestige and power” [Green, 552] for those whose framework was the world as we know it. Seen through the framework of the Kingdom of God, a different currency is the “gold standard.”

Jesus expands the picture of humility by exhorting his audience to invite to their dinner table the needy and those who cannot repay such kindness. Hospitality should be open to all. This kind of reversal of expectations and status is thematic in Luke (e.g., 1:52; 6:20-26; 18:14). In fact, in the very next passage, our meal story continues with Jesus reemphasizing the notion of inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind (14:21), this time in a parable representing the eschatological banquet of God, which will include just such marginalized ones, with the “invited guest list” being left out (14:24).

Jesus admonishes that, whether at the early meal/lunch (ariston) or the main evening meal (deipnon), hospitality should be shown not to the rich and famous nor to family members, but to those who cannot repay the favor. In ancient culture, the one who hosted a festive meal, as today, would be placed on the invitation list for future meals at the guests’ homes. Jesus argues that such “payback” hospitality has no merit. The best hospitality is given, not simply exchanged in a kind of unspoken social contract.

Tannehill writes about this section (Luke, 230):

A formal dinner was a way in which an elite family (the kind of family who could afford such a dinner) proclaimed and maintained its elite status. The guest list was important, for the invitation indicated that one was accepted as a member of the elite. Family members and important people of the community needed to be honored in this way, and they would be expected to reciprocate. Jesus’ instructions in verses 12-14 conflict with this social function of dinners. It might be a source of honor for someone to give charity to the poor, but it is quite another thing to invite them to a social function in place of family and people of wealth, and eat with them. By doing this, the host is dishonoring family and rich neighbors and in their place is honoring the poor; or, in the eyes of the elite, the host is dishonoring himself by identifying with the poor. Therefore, verse 11 may apply to what follows as well as to what precedes. Those who invite family and people of status are exalting themselves by proclaiming their place in this group. Those who invite the poor and crippled are humbling themselves.

If God reaches out to all, then those who seek to honor God should reach out also. So the poor, crippled, the lame, the blind should be invited. (This list looks much like the list of Luke 7:22, with a few differences; it is repeated in Luke 14:21.) The poor and the powerless should be welcome. It is in this manner that one more and more becomes servant and thus disciple.

The point is that in doing good we should serve freely, without regard for our own prospects, leaving the recompense to God. This is the way Jesus went about doing good, emptying himself for others without counting the cost. There is Semitic exaggeration in the statement that one should not invite friends, relatives, and neighbors. The kingdom is for everyone, and our hospitality is to embrace all, especially those who are overlooked by most people.


Image: A Place of Honor According to Jeshua from https://www.breadforbeggars.com

Honor at Meals

This coming Sunday is the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time.  In yesterday’s post we explored the Scriptural  use of the word “humility.”  Today we will consider the mealing setting, common in many of the gospels as a metaphor for the celebration of the Kingdom’s come. But it is also often a setting of controversy. Consider that vv.1-6 centered on the debate at table regarding the lawfulness of curing on the Sabbath – reminiscent of earlier discussions about appropriate behavior on the Sabbath (e.g., 6:2, 9; 13:14–16). Continue reading