Good Goal, Terrible Teaching. The Table Fellowship Myth

It is a sad truth that churches are not always unified. At times the reasons for division appear trivial, but in most circumstances the disagreements are based on interpretations of Scripture. When the disagreement centers around the direction of the church or on the emphasis of its ministry resolution can be difficult. One of the major questions with which the church has struggled  is the question of how the church should relate to the secular world. Teaching on the subject has fluctuated over time with some churches encouraging clear separation and others embracing cultural change. Most churches I have attended have taught that Christians should love and serve others as much as they can without compromising their principles or in anyway implying acceptance of inappropriate behavior. This traditional response has recently come under attack as our society has become increasingly secular and embracing cultural change become more challenging.

The attacks have not come only from those outside of the church. Many pastors are teaching that the model of Jesus is to fully engage with people “right where they are at”, encouraging Christians to intentionally go into settings previously considered taboo. The argument is that this is what Jesus did. Christians who value purity and who are fearful of condoning inappropriate behavior are labeled as judgmental, out of touch, and unconcerned about the lost.

In support of this more tolerant attitude passages of Scripture are cited in which Jesus is described as dining with “sinners and tax-gatherers” and as a result drawing the ire of the religious leaders of the day. In the culture in which Jesus lived sharing a meal was a significant sign of acceptance. That Jesus would accept those who were deemed unclean by the religious authorities was a big deal. There is no question that when Jesus dined with these people he was setting an example for others. But what is the example Jesus set? I have heard several sermons in which people were urged to be like Jesus, to go and partake of the lives of those traditionally not a part of the church. The teaching was that we go with an attitude of acceptance, welcoming people just as they are, regardless of lifestyle or behavior. 

One new church in town as made this principle of “table fellowship” a major part of its mission. On its website it declares-

“One of the most controversial aspects of Jesus’ ministry was his willingness to share meals with outcasts, sinners, and the marginalized.  Sharing a meal with someone in Jesus’ day was considered a form of acceptance and social approval. This was called table fellowship, and used by Jesus to manifest the open and expansive nature of his movement.

The practice of table fellowship is, for us, the most important picture of how we relate to the world around us: practicing radical hospitality, committed to countercultural friendship, and embodying extravagant grace.”

This sounds wonderful, but this understanding of Jesus’ “table fellowship” is inaccurate. The implication that Jesus was going out of His way to dine with immoral people without conditions in order to extend grace and show His love to outsiders is dangerously wrong. This is not what Jesus was doing and this is not the example we are to follow.

There are only three episodes in the gospels in which Jesus is specifically described as participating in a group meal as a guest in an outsider’s home- in the home of Matthew, a tax-collector who left his work to follow Jesus, in the home of Zacchaeus, another tax collector, and in the home of a leper named Simon. A close look at each of these stories reveals details that counter the popular “table fellowship” narrative.

The meal at the home of Matthew is described in three of the gospel accounts. Luke tells us that Matthew “held a great banquet in Jesus’ honor” and that a “large crowd of tax collectors and sinners were eating with them.” Mark’s account is similar, but in his description of the event he adds a crucial detail, writing, “many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples for there were many who followed him.”

Mark’s words are important, for they tell us the nature of those who were at the celebration. They were followers of Jesus! Jesus did not invite himself to the house of a stranger or simply join in a secular gathering. He went into a home where he was invited to dine with people who believed in who he was and what he was teaching. These people came from questionable backgrounds, but their faith was what mattered.

The famous story of Zacchaeus, the diminutive tax collector of Jericho, provides additional insight. Zacchaeus had apparently heard of Jesus and his teaching prior to Jesus’ coming to Jericho. The amazing stories Zacchaeus had heard about Jesus had aroused his interest. Zacchaeus wanted to know more about who Jesus was. Luke’s account says that Zacchaeus climbed a tree because he wanted to “see who Jesus was.” He did not want only to lay eyes on Jesus and see what he looked like. He was interested in who Jesus was, in gaining knowledge of him. Jesus, in response to Zacchaeus’ interest, called him down from the tree and invited himself to Zacchaeus’ house for dinner. While Zacchaeus had been an immoral tax gatherer, subsequent events confirm that his interest in Jesus was genuine.

Zacchaeus welcomed Jesus “gladly” into his home. When others criticized Jesus for going into the house of a sinner, Zacchaeus answered their criticism by proclaiming that he was a changed man. He promised to give half of his wealth to the poor and to make fourfold restitution to any he had cheated. In this story we see that the key was not who Zacchaeus had been, but who he was becoming. Again, it was his faith that mattered.

The story of Simon the leper contains little information, but there is still something we can infer. As it was unlawful for a leper to live in a town and to be in direct contact with others, and as there were others present in the home, it is likely that Simon had been cleansed of his leprosy, most likely by Jesus. This account would then follow the pattern of the other stories in that those who were outcasts were outcast no longer because of Jesus. Jesus was not going into a place where he was unknown or where his teaching was not embraced. He was a welcome guest, welcome for who he was and as who he was. There was no trust to be gained, argument to be won or persuasion to be achieved. He was welcome.

An honest assessment of these passages leads to a different application of the meaning of table fellowship. It is not about going to places where sin is rampant and people are opposed to Christianity with a message of acceptance. It is about recognizing that it is faith in Christ, and not our earthly station, that is the basis of our fellowship. Table fellowship, as practiced by Jesus, is not about how we relate to unbelievers and those outside the faith. It is about how we relate to fellow believers without regard to their background or earthly station. That this is correct is confirmed by the Apostle Paul's teaching that their is "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ." (Galatians 3:28 ESV)

This leaves the question of how Christians should interact with those outside the faith. Jesus is the perfect example. Everywhere he went he went with a singular purpose- to proclaim the truth of who God was and of God’s plan for saving people from their sins. He was not afraid to address the sins of others, for the first recorded words of his public ministry were “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He loved and served others, but His primary objective was not meeting the physical needs of others. His goal was to bring people into right relationship with God. It was what he lived and died for.

The question remains as to why an incorrect application of the concept of table fellowship has taken hold in so many places. I believe it is a reflection of the negative attitude toward the church that is prevalent in our society. As traditional Christian teachings and practices become viewed with an increasingly critical eye there is a natural tendency for some to want to place the blame on something the church is doing wrong. With the desire to "win people over" comes a desire to identify areas where Christians are in the wrong. Teachers search the Scriptures looking for something that Jesus did that we don't, believing that if we could be more like him that the world would see our love and goodness and respond. In spite of their good intentions, when people approach Scripture with presuppositions error is often the end result. 

True followers of Christ need to remember that being liked by the world has never been a characteristic of godliness. The opposite is true. No one was more like Jesus than Jesus and the world crucified him. The reward of living for Christ is not found in this life or in the responses of those who are outside the faith. The reward is in the next life and in the response of our Heavenly Father. 

The final question is more difficult. How does the church avoid conflict and division? The question is over 2000 years old. As long as churches are led by and filled with people the challenge will remain. The church will do better when it is careful in choosing its leaders, cautious in accepting new teaching and consistent in its commitment to Scripture as ultimate authority. It is when we are known primarily by the love we have for one another and not by our love for the world that unity can blossom.

- Bart

Follow me on twitter @bartbarrettmd. Comments are welcome!

You will Never be Cool. Deal with it.

“You are my son. You will never be cool. Deal with it.”

I said these words to my son when he was 9 years old. He was showing me the new school clothes he had just bought with his mom. Included in the new wardrobe was a pair of extremely baggy jeans, the kind intended to be worn well below the waistline. His mother had told him she did not think they were appropriate and would likely be rejected in the court of dad but he was determined to make an appeal to the judge. The pants were “cool” and he wanted them. Unfortunately for the future lawyer, in the court of dad any objection based on coolness was always overruled.

He was disappointed and not too happy about my verdict. What was the harm in wearing baggy pants? I explained to him that like it or not people judge other people based on appearance, that what we wear sends a message about us. Being cool was not important, but being godly and excellent was. While there may not be any harm in wearing edgy clothes, there is a higher objective.

I also considered a secondary long term goal in rendering my decision. The desire to be accepted, to fit it and be loved, is incredibly powerful and often increases over time. I knew that if I was going to raise a child who was driven by values that I would need to encourage values-driven thought at an early age. One of the most important values is that right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, are not determined by culture but by God. Following God inevitably leads to conflict with the culture. I could not expect him to stand up for his values in the future if I did not train him to do so in the present. Standing against the crowd is almost never cool or popular.

This is a crucial matter for people of faith. Christian beliefs are often at odds with the values of the society in which we live. Simply stating one's beliefs can lead to significant cultural backlash, to accusations of bigotry and hate. People who have not been taught from a young age how to stand up for and defend their faith, people who do not value faith over cultural acceptance, are unlikely to be able withstand the pressure. They may cave.

A few months ago my son interviewed for a position with an attorney’s office in Southern California. During the interview he was asked about his upbringing and values. He told them that as a child his father taught him to do the right thing no matter what. He told them that he learned that doing right was more important than being popular or cool. He shared what he had been told as a little boy, that he was my son and therefore would never be “cool”. The interviewers laughed at the story but were also impressed. They realized that before them was a young man of character.

My son learned the lesson. He also got the job.

- bart

Love and an Irrational Fear of Alcohol

I have never had a drink. I have taken a few sips to see how something tasted but I have never downed a complete beverage. Alcohol wreaked havoc on my family so I have lived my life as if I was an alcoholic. I will not drink. I have a strong aversion to it and avoid it completely to the point of irrationality.

My wife learned about my irrationality early in our marriage. We had been married only a few months when she went to the wedding of a friend. I worked Saturdays at a market and was unable to attend so she went alone. When I came home late that evening she told me about the ceremony and reception. As a part of the story she mentioned having a glass of champagne for the toast. This bothered me terribly and I did not hide the fact well (I would never make it as a poker player, my face tells all).

She asked me what the problem was, it had only been a single glass of champagne. I told her that while there was nothing wrong with anyone drinking a glass of champagne, that the image of the woman I loved with a drink in her hand was terribly upsetting to me. I knew it was silly, but it really bothered me.

Lisa hasn’t had a drink since. Not because it is wrong for her to drink and definitely not because my argument was powerful and persuasive. She decided to never have a drink because she loves me. My revulsion to alcohol is irrational and extreme, but it is real and based on real hurt from my childhood. Alcohol is nothing more than a beverage to her and she gladly set it aside to ease my pain.

I thought of this story recently in counseling a patient. He is in the process of working a 12-step program after 30 years of an alcoholic life. He has fully embraced his recovery, going to counseling and hosting meetings for those he met in rehab. While he has been doing well with sobriety his relationship with his wife has struggled. One of the areas of conflict has been the coed nature of the meetings he hosts. His wife is not comfortable with him having friendships with women, even though he does not meet with them one on one.

“So don’t have friendships with women,” I interrupted. He defended the practice and explained that he was never alone with the women and that it was all centered around recovery. He told me he had invited his wife to the meetings so she could chaperone and see that there was nothing untoward going on, but she did not want to go. He could not understand why his wife was as bothered as she was. No explanation or protestation of innocence could sway her. He felt trapped, as he felt the meetings were important but wanted to respect his wife as well.

“Don’t have women at the meetings,” I said, “Make them men only.” I told him that his wife’s fears and concerns did not have to be rational to be respected. His wife had endured decades of his alcoholism and was no doubt deeply wounded. She did not owe him an explanation and did not need to defend her position. Instead of arguing with her, he should choose an act of love by telling her, “I understand,” and changing his meetings to men only.

I shared with him the story of my wife and the wedding champagne. I explained that while my request that she not drink was irrational and absurd, my wife honored it because she could. She loved me that much. My wife did not need to be persuaded by logic or convinced by argument. She needed only to understand my heart and my fears. After a little more conversation with the patient he decided that he would honor his wife’s request. He had been selfish in his drinking for years, he could now do this one thing for her.

As he left I thought of the incredible example of love my wife has been for the last 34 years. She has accommodated so much. Raised toilet seats, cupboards and drawers NEVER closed, as well as my fears, anger and anxieties. I thought of the hundreds of failed marriages I have seen over the years and how many times a marriage might have been saved if someone had let go of “being right” and simply given in out of love.

I went home that night and told my wife that she is wonderful and amazing. Because she is.

- Bart

Thanks for reading. You can receive posts in your inbox by clicking on the subscription link. I can be followed on twitter @bartbarrettmd. If you find this (or any post) valuable, please consider sharing it with others.

Faithfulness Not Success

I met a new pastor recently. I had visited his church a few times but snuck out the back after the service without introducing myself. As his church is in Huntington Beach and I am occasionally asked by patients for a local church recommendation I thought it would be good to meet with him. I reached out to him via email and offered to buy him lunch. We met a week later when our schedules lined up.

He seems to be a genuinely nice man. In his sermons and through out the lunch conversation he came across as someone who does not seek the limelight, someone who is content serving God in whatever place God leads him. He is a faithful and consistent Bible teacher whose sermons are relevant and instructive. For some reason his church has not grown in numbers over the years. His church is small (fewer than 50 members attend most Sundays) but he didn’t complain at all about the lack of growth or his relative anonymity. 

I visited the church again a few weeks ago. The music leader was talented and passionate, the people were friendly and the sermon was again biblically sound. Attendance was sparse yet the leaders gave their all. It was a good service.

A few days later I met another pastor for lunch. He had just returned from a week with musicians who were pioneers in contemporary music in the 1970’s. Some of the men had been “stars” in the Christian music scene. They had performed in all 50 states and in over 50 countries. For a period of time people everywhere were singing their songs. Thousands were coming to their concerts. They were "somebody" for a while, until their fame faded.

Some of these formerly famous artists have struggled mightily over the years. They were so focused on their music, so convinced of their calling and gifts, that they failed to develop other marketable talents and skills. They toil now in obscurity, writing songs and recording music for which there appears to be little demand. They press on, hoping that someday they will again have an impact. Discouragement is for some an ever present compassion.

I have pondered the relative circumstances of the small church pastor and the musicians for the last several days. They are both gifted, passionate and committed. They both love God and want to be used by him, yet they all currently labor in anonymity. The difference is that the pastor is content and some of the musicians aren’t. The pastor does not seek the praise and attention of others while many musicians long for it. The pastor trusts that God is at work, the musicians struggle with the idea that God’s work does not involve earthly success or greater recognition.

It seems to me that most of us are more like the musician than the pastor. Western churches mirror western culture. We live in a world that measures success by numbers and advancement. We look forward to bigger, brighter and better things. The idea that diminishing popularity might be God’s plan, that we might be called to lives of relative anonymity, is inconsistent with our understanding of God’s blessing. The thought that our time of influence may be brief does not resonate. We act as if planning for a life outside of ministry or taking the time to develop additional skill sets is a manifestation of a lack a faith.

We forget the lesson of John the Baptist. Jesus referred to him as the greatest man who had lived up to that time yet he had a ministry that lasted for less than a year. This did not seem to bother him. When someone came to him bemoaning the fact that people were migrating to Jesus and leaving John behind his answer was profound, “He must increase but I must decrease.” John seemed to understand that his life would be measured not by his sustained popularity but according to his ongoing faithfulness.

The pastor seems to have embraced this truth.

I am working on it.

-Bart

Medical Students Have Changed, So I no Longer Teach

For over 20 years I have been a teacher of medical students. I began my first year in practice with a third year medical student spending one morning a week in my office for a year. The one on one year long program lasted for 5 years. It was fun observing each student grow and mature as the weeks passed. Some students experienced remarkable intellectual and professional growth, transforming into doctors before my eyes. When UCI decided not to use community doctors for that program I was disappointed, but I transitioned into teaching second year students who were learning how to interview patients and perform basic physical exams. The students were green and lacked medical knowledge so the challenge was much greater, but the commitment was less extensive as they were in the office much less.

Over the last few years I have participated in two different programs. UCI’s family medicine curriculum now calls for students to spend a month in a doctor’s office (I say a month, but the students are often scheduled for lectures and meetings so they are in the office for a total of 13 days.) The second program was a new one in which first year medical students spent one day a week in my office for three months. It was their very first exposure to actual medical practice

As the curriculum has evolved it is not only the structure of the programs that has changed, the expectations of the students has changed as well. There is a sense of entitlement that I did to see 20 years ago. This was most evident with the first year medical students. Their medical knowledge was non-existent, as they had barely started their course work in anatomy and had not taken any courses in diseases, diagnosis or pharmacology. They did not even know how to diagnose a common cold! In spite of this lack of knowledge they all expected to spend time alone with patients conducting interviews and doing basic exams. They had no idea what questions to ask or the significance of answers given by the patients, but that did not stop them from grueling personal interviews or from giving misinformed advice. The students had been given only basic training in physical examinations and were ignorant about what to do with what they saw and heard. Patients were seen more as learning opportunities than people.

One student I had complained about not being assigned enough patients per day, oblivious to the fact that many patients were not comfortable spending an additional 30-60 minutes in the office so they could answer medical questions from an ignorant stranger. The student cared little for the time or comfort of the patients. It was all about her.

The third year students recently in my office were little better. They had more training and knowledge than did the first years, but they still lacked awareness of their limitations and how they impacted patient care. When a longstanding patient pulled me aside and told me about the wildly incorrect advice given by one medical student I knew I had to make a change.

I no longer teach medical students in my office.

It was a difficult decision at first, as teaching has always been a passion and there have been some students who were outstanding. I know with certainty that I have had a significant impact on some of the students, even converting some of them to pursue family medicine. Nevertheless, when I stopped and considered the negative impact teaching had on my practice the decision became easier. Electronic records and other documentation requirements have compromised the quality of patient interactions as it is and medical students were making quality interactions even more difficult. Since ending my participation in these teaching programs I have realized how much better patient interactions are when there isn’t a student in the room. Patients have my undivided attention in a safe and private setting. The office runs more smoothly and I do not fall behind as often. Patient care is better, and this needs to be my primary goal. 

-Bart