Sometimes I read something; and it makes sense of lots of stuff!

Many people I know struggle to offer hospitality to others – other do so frequently, enjoying the privilege of blessing others.

My wife Alison and I are able to do hospitality. Interesting that my parents almost never had friends in their home; whether for meals, of even just a tea or coffee. In contrast, Alison’s parents frequently did so – I had a lot of catching up to do!

I read the section ‘Commercialized Hospitality’ in Tom Chester’s book A Meal with Jesus. This made a lot of sense!

The Old and New Testaments indicate simple practical hospitality was commonplace.  It still true in many cultures, but less so in the UK and the US.

The ‘Commercialized Hospitality’ section starts with some statistics; that there has been a 1/3^rd reduction in the number of families eating together in the past 30 years; at the same time there has been a 45% decline in entertaining friends. Also, more than half of those families who do eat together do so in front of the television. And, new homes increasingly do not have dining rooms.

Historically ordinary households, then monasteries, were open to welcome travellers. In pre-industrial times, hospitality was classless.  But, from the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, restaurants were developed in France, such that people could dine publicly in isolation! In the subsequent decades, dining out and entertaining and hospitality have become increasingly expensive and ostentatious.

The section concludes that hospitality has become something of a performance art; and we have lost the intimacy of a shared meal.

Time perhaps to re-capture the beauty and simplicity of hospitality that is truly for everyone!

The apostle Paul was, in modern parlance, a missionary. In a sense he was always restless, not wanting to build on another’s foundation, not wanting to spend too much time in any one place. There was lots of work to do!

Romans 15.22-29 reveal something of the apostle’s heart on this matter. Paul refers to Rome, to Spain, to Jerusalem, and to other places he has already visited. Matthew Henry reminds us that the reason was always the people there. Great architecture and glorious scenery were never part of his planning.

In Acts16.6-10, we read of clear divine guidance in his mission. But here we read of him following principles. Such are not contradictory, but entirely consistent. God always guides His people in line with principles of integrity and compassion.

Paul writes, “but now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions…” (v23). A remarkable statement! Again, we learn from Matthew Henry. He says:

• Paul would not leave his work of planting churches; and
• The whole of that country being more or less leavened with the savour of the gospel.

The apostle Paul was committed to planting churches, his practice everywhere he travelled. But he did not do this without the support and partnership of others. Indeed, part of his commitment was to release others to plant and support churches. Several times we read him sending others on his behalf.

Paul remained committed to planting churches, but he did not need to remain in the region he was writing from. Those churches were, it seems, sufficiently strong to raise their own church-planters in the spirit of Paul. He was confident that they shared his way of life in Christ Jesus. The churches that they would plant would share the same values as churches Paul personally planted. In 2 Timothy 2.2, Paul had explicitly planned and provided for these same values to be passed on to future generations of leaders in local churches. Mission will continue to be fuelled by the same truths.

Other regions remained to be opened for the gospel, and Paul was committed to that goal. In 2 Cor 10.16 he refers to ‘regions beyond’ Corinth. Until Christ returns there will always be regions beyond, communities that have not heard the good news of Jesus Christ. In fact, Christ Himself promised that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached in the whole world, to all tribes, and then the end will come (Matt 24.14).

It was an aside during a sermon at The Bridge Church this year, that highlighted Luke’s technique of including two characters in incidents and parables. Or, better, that Christ Himself did. We are drawn into the narrative, perhaps with our sympathies moving from one character to the other, and then perhaps back again. In our Hollywood-influenced world, we like our stories to have clear heroes and villains – Bible stories are sometimes not so tidy; since real life is not so tidy!

I found seven stories in Luke’s gospel.

7.36-50 – the sinful woman and the host Pharisee.

13.10-17 – the woman with the spirit and the ruler of the synagogue.

15.11-32 – The ‘Prodigal Son’ – with the younger and elder brother.

16.1-13 – the dishonest manager and the rich man.

16.19-31 – Lazarus and the rich man.

18.1-8 – the persistent widow and the judge.

18.9-14 – the tax collector and the Pharisee.

The latter characters are strong, with seniority in society, enjoying wealth and power.

The former characters are weak, with obvious sins; they are poor and dependent. The first includes the sinful woman, probably a prostitute; the final incident includes the tax collector, someone hated in first century Judea.

In all seven incidents, where the former character becomes the ‘hero,’ then they are all flawed heroes, which of course is the way of scripture.

Jesus never condones sin, but He seems not to be phazed by sin either. Jesus is looking for repentance and faith with obedience.

Jesus routinely challenges cultural norms and expectations. His listeners would be surprised by the stories, perhaps offended by them. ‘Surely he (she) would never behave in that way!’  He is telling stories, not giving lists of do’s and don’ts; He wants us to enter into these stories, with our own failings and weaknesses, and learn His ways, hear His voice, His heart-beat for us.