We take the meal with as much gospel seriousness as we take our Scriptures;
we take the kitchen to be as essential in the work of salvation as is the sanctuary. - Eugene Peterson

This paper focuses on the Christian vocation to Christian character and identity formation in the household. The paper presents an outline for a practical theology of the household from the perspective of missional vocation - an outline that culminates into integrating processes of Christian formation and the household practices of meals, for illuminating the missional intention of character and identity formation in the household. The contribution of this paper is part of a broader missional agenda to stimulate subsequent efforts to develop a missional model for the facilitation of processes, and for the implementation of programs, that assist Christians in their vocation as witnesses to Christ in the context of their households.

The argument in this paper, first, explores the theological possibility of cultivating a missional vocation to the household, as a necessary endeavour of the missional Church. Secondly, such a theological possibility will lead to the outline of a practical theology of the household as a basic framework for the missional interpretation of certain necessary processes of Christian character and identity formation. Thirdly, this paper suggests the practice of nurturing a culture of the table, as an appropriate fulfillment of a missional vocation to Christian formation in the household.

Cultivating a missional vocation to the household

The English humorist P. G. Wodehouse had the following to say about the writing of novels: 'I believe there are two ways of writing novels. One is mine, making a sort of musical comedy without music and ignoring real life altogether; the other is going right deep down into life and not caring a damn.' Douglas Hall applies the Wodehouse quote to the writing of theology: on the one hand, you will find the 'musical comedies without music' of those theologians who 'withdraw into their own fortresses' and stimulate a kind of Christianity that 'no longer feels obliged to go out into the marketplace to find out what is happening there, for it believes that its doctrine has already accounted for anything and everything that could possibly occur in the world...'; on the other hand, you will find theologians who are willing to delve 'right deep down into life', as 'all authentic Judeo-Christian theology must do...'

Hall's remark about the task of theology, on the analogy of the Wodehouse quote, is of course imbedded in his theology of the cross that 'assumes a strong world-orientation and presses its adherents ever more insistently towards the actual world in which they find themselves.' A theology of the cross that rejects theologies of glory 'which invariably tend to supercede creation in favor of a supramundane redemption' is always 'bound to this world in all of its materiality, ambiguity, and incompleteness.' This understanding of the nature of the theological enterprise resonates strongly in Jurgen Moltmann's kingdom-of-God theology that 'springs from God's love for life' and becomes 'engaged wherever there is life and wherever that life is threatened.'

A theology that (in Hall's language above) 'presses its adherents... towards the actual world' is a theology that has as its chief end the missional vocation of the Church. Theology in itself is a matter of vocation for Hall. It is a vocational matter, not only because the theologian is summoned or 'appointed by God', but also because it has 'as its telos (inner aim) an apostolic rationale... to perform a particular service in an for the community of faith...' But, the 'goal toward which such theological reflection presses,' says Hall, 'is the generation of a missiology and an ethic that adequately express the world-directedness of the theology of the cross.'

It is important to note that in Hall's description theology serves a missional church in which there is no separation of mission and ethics. A separation of mission and ethics, as is the case in theologies of glory, can only result in a triumphalistic 'mission to the world.' In such instance, the church is a church with a mission. To the contrast, a missional church, in which there is no separation of mission and ethics, is an ecclesia crucis that lives with the assumption 'that those who would bring good news to the world must submit themselves to the 'imperative' that the gospel's 'new indicative' announces.' To have a missional vocation is to 'live the story' of God's involvement in the world. It is 'a way of life' that enacts the Christic drama in the world.

This paper pursue a manner in which such a contextual, life-oriented, and primarily missional theology (with no separation between missiology and ethics), can inform a missional 'ecclesia crusis' (who 'lives the story' of the missio Dei) for the cultivation of its missional vocation to the formation of followers of Christ that live 'a way of life' through enacting Christ's way of living in the world. It indicates the household as an appropriate life location for such an endeavour. And it focuses on the meal as a concrete missional practice through which it can be accomplish.

The household as an appropriate location for a missional vocation to Christian formation is important for at least three reasons:

First of all, the acknowledgement that the debate about missional theology and missional church needs to be enriched by exploring the missional vocation of Christians in their everyday working and living circumstances (also in relation to role and place of the missional church of course), as to ensure that the missional debate does not become a narrow ecclesiastical debate in which the institutional church ends up as the primary focus again.

Darrell Guder, editor of the 'Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), concedes a possible 'valid impression' (in criticism directed at the 'missional church project' of the late 90's) that 'the church is the priority' in the missional church discussions - in spite of the many ways in which the 'inward focus' and 'reductionistic theologies and practices of the church' was critiqued in that discussions. He admits it as 'a serious gap in our early discussions' that needs attention, because it is obviously never the intention of the missional theology and missional church debate to make the institutional church the priority. Guder needs to be quoted more fully on this: 'Mission rooted in the trinitarian nature and action of God must take the emphasis upon 'cosmos' in both Testaments seriously. It relates theologically the calling and practice of the church to God's healing purposes for the whole world. This must mean, then, that the presence and action of Christian witness within that world must become a central emphasis of missional theology. The preservation of the institutional church as we have known it is not the purpose of the gospel; the church is the instrument of God's mission in the world... If the church is missionary by its very nature, then the life and calling of every Christian person is fundamentally missional. But it must be conceded that this has not been sufficiently emphasized in the gospel and culture discussion up to now.'

In almost similar fashion than Douglas Hall's description of the Church as an apostolic community in which there cannot be a separation of mission and ethics, Guder also, stress the importance of a 'dynamic understanding of the interaction between discipleship and apostolate.' The goal of the missional vocation of the church as primarily an apostolic community is 'the formation of the community for its vocation of witness.' The goal of formation for witnessing does not consist of giving Christians another list of things to do, but rather entails the formation of an identity of people who enacts God's missional intention in everything they are and do: ''How they lived together, how they dealt with their disagreements, how they interacted with the customs and practices of their pagan context, how rich treated poor, husbands treated wives, owners treated slaves, parents treated children, how they practiced their sexuality - everything was subsumed under his one vocation: 'you shall be my witness'...'.

The household is one of these very important life locations for the challenge of being witnesses to Christ. Therefore, it is as an appropriate goal for cultivating the missional vocation of theology and church than any other sphere of life.

Secondly, the 'family crisis' necessitates a re-evaluation of the Church's responsibility towards the household as part of the church's missional vocation to Christian character and identity formation.

The results of studies in 'The Religion, Culture, and Family Project', that took place in the Institute for Advanced Study in the University of Chicago Divinity School during the late 90's, indicate 'four competing social sciences explanations of the family crisis, namely changing cultural values (especially with the increase of individualism), changing economic patterns, psychological causes (such as poor socialization and inadequate communication skills) and patriarchy (still visible, although declining).' It is not within the scope of this paper to give attention to all of these important factors, and the implications it have for Christian formation in households. But, in the development of an outline for a practical theology as a framework for the exploration of a missional vocation to Christian formation in the household (in the next part of this paper), it will become clear that this paper is in agreement with the assessment in the results of the above mentioned study that 'the cultural factor of inordinate individualism - the desire to attain more expressive and utilitarian satisfactions for oneself - is critical'. Families are clearly in need of an ethics of mutuality and equal regard based on the Christian story, to assist them in the formation of a household that counters an 'inordinate individualism' and promotes a missional vocation to life.

Larry Rasmussen, in his work on moral and community fragmentation, warns against the impact of such an 'inordinate individualism' and its associated utilitarianism in the household: 'The family... has become more and more a setting for consumption and less and less the place where one generation initiates the next into a way of life in which all have a significant place and day-by-day participation... the family is less and less the most common locus of manifold engagement.' Rasmussen draws upon the work of the moral philosopher, Albert Borgmann, and his description of 'the device paradigm'. In short, Borgmann shows how the grammar of an increasingly technological society shapes the social and moral relations in society. Borgmann highlights the irony of how, on the one hand, modernity heightens human interdependence, but, on the other hand, reduces human contact to little more than mere points of labor and commodities. Human relationships become 'commodities whose utility we measure and consume', with the consequence that there is less and less 'scope for people to develop their own moral capacities' and it is more and more a reality that moral networks dissolve.

In a context like this, where the force of modernity becomes quite clear in its most depersonalized forms and implications, Christian character and identity formation entails the cultivation of a deeply counter-cultural perspective on, and lifestyle with regard to, selfhood and relationships. Nancy Ammerman's most recent research on 'American Congregations and their Partners' shows a big enough 'concern about fragmentation and community' amongst congregational leaders. Unfortunately, not many know how to assist families in these circumstances. The emphasis in so called 'family ministries' is still very much on creating church based gatherings for members of families 'to find category-appropriate places in congregations' (groups for singles, seniors, men, women, and youth), rather than concentrating on Christian formation in the setting of the household itself.

This paper suggests an alternative approach to 'family ministry' - an approach that compliments any church based activities that deserve its merit, with a primary focus on Christian character and identity formation at the location of the household and within the setting of the family itself.

Thirdly, there is an urgent need to reclaim the household as 'First Church' and 'Little Church' for the sake of Christian character and identity formation.

Browning et al uses the terminology 'First Church' and 'Little Church' as an indication of a strategy that can be initiated by local congregations and parishes to enhance 'home-based worship.' They present it as a strategy that brings continuity between the gathered ecclesia and the church at home. It is an essential strategy at times when home and public worship become more and more differentiated. As Protestant authors, Browning et al not only find the reclaiming of the home-based 'church' important, but also find in the Protestant tradition an appropriate 'dialogical, and nonpatriarchal model' for reclaiming it: 'Our model grounds parental authority in a dialogue between parents' own covenant with God and the church's covenant. This assumes that God has a covenant with both church and family. Parental authority, therefore, should evolve from a dialogue with a church that itself is dedicated to an appreciative yet critical inquiry into its traditions.'



Christian formation in the household

What would be the theological guidelines for supporting this possibility of a missional vocation to the household? This question suggests that a missional vocation to the household is in need of a practical theology of the household that allows missional interpretations of the Christian formation that takes place in the household. This paper presents a preliminary outline for such a practical theology as a basic framework for deliberating on what processes of Christian formation in the household are necessary from a missional point of view.

The framework presented in this paper draws upon 'four themes that can inform a practical theology of the family' emerging from 'The Religion, Culture, and Family Project'. The four themes is the result of a study of tradition and scripture, but the authors also consider it 'as ideals that can command philosophical support and be consistent with experience and reason.' A brief look at these four themes will lay the foundation for a practical theology of the household that illuminates processes of Christian formation from a missional perspective.

Browning et al begin by asserting, as a first theme, that 'love as mutuality or equal regard... is the core of Christian love' in families. They do concede though that love as mutuality or equal regard is not necessarily uniquely Christian , but then show that it 'becomes explicitly Christian when it is grounded on the imago Dei in humans and renewed by the capacity for sacrificial love, a love that recapitulates the Christic drama and the passion of God.' Based on the mutuality of the Biblical love command, love as equal regard is developed as more than just an exclusive regard for the other. They rather describe it as a 'reversible logic of the kind written about by neo-Kantians' (like Lawrence Kohlberg and John Rawls), because 'love as equal regard does not exclude self-love, self-regard, or an ordinate concern with one's own self-fulfillment.'

To nurture love as mutuality or equal regard in the household is consider being a fundamentally important process of Christian formation in this paper's outline of a framework for a practical theology of the household from a missional perspective. The reason for that becomes even clearer if we look at three qualifications that Browning et al present for a better understanding of love as mutuality or equal regard.

First, mutuality and equal regard is intersubjective and dialogical concepts. Using Jurgen Habermas's theory of intersubjective discourse , and applied to family relationships, Browning et al reject an understanding of these concepts in monological terms as an act or judgment of an individual with regard to another individual. To the contrary, 'love as equal regard is not something that one individual expresses unilaterally toward another. It is something that people create together... through successive attempts to communicate needs and desires, to listen and understand, to empathize with, hold, and accept, and then to live their mutual agreements.' Therefore, the nurturing of love as mutuality or equal regard in the household entails the cultivation of 'a covenant of intersubjective dialogue'.

Secondly, love as mutuality and equal regard means to be the 'promoter of the good things of life.' With reference to Paul Ricoeur, Browning et al describe love not only as respect for one another, but also as 'a proactive commitment to do good to the beloved.' To work for the welfare of the other in the household represents the 'teleological' element of love. It is an important aspect of mutuality to promote the 'premoral values and goods' in the other. These 'premoral values and goods' includes, among other, 'a sense of self-esteem, the need for interpersonal regard, and affirmation by others.' A household culture of love as mutuality or equal regard will also involve the formation of members of the household who promotes 'the good things of life' in each other.

Thirdly, love as mutuality or equal regard can functions within a narrative context. Browning et al say, 'Learning how to communicate intersubjective equal regard for the other is really learning to express respect for the life history or narrative of the other's self.' This aspect is crucial for identity formation, because an understanding of selfhood is mainly of a narrative nature. With reference to Alasdair MacIntyre, Browning et al put it as follow: 'Narrative selfhood is a combination of the stories we are born into and the stories we create as we live our lives. Hence, to love the other as oneself means to regard and empathize with the narrative identity of the other just as one regards and empathizes with one's own.' Equal regard only becomes concrete when a person's ultimate worth is valued within the context of that person's personal history. This is extremely important, 'not only (for) how families are formed but, more important, how they are sustained.' This paper will indicate (in its third part) that it is equally important for a missional interpretation of Christian formation in a household.

The second of the four themes defines the first theme of love as mutuality or equal regard in terms of the Christian element of self-sacrifice or self-giving. Self-sacrificial love is not the ideal of the Christian life or an end in itself though, but rather 'derived from equal regard' (in contrast to so many popular versions of Christian love which makes self-sacrifice the goal). Using Ephesians as a basis text, Browning et al makes love as mutuality the goal, while self-giving and self-sacrifice 'is needed to renew the true goal of love', namely mutuality. They present us with a kind of a 'Christian realism' that accounts for the reality of sin and the 'near impossibility' of any moment of self-sacrifice. Therefore, we need the Christic drama of the Passion of God ('with all of its attendant features of forgiveness, patience, and renewal') that aid and assist us as a drama to participate in. They sum it up as follow: 'This additional capacity for sacrificial self-giving inspired by the suffering and grace of God is what turns love as equal regard into a distinctively Christian reality.' In the third part of this paper, it will become clear that self-giving is an important feature for the interpretation of a culture of the table as missional practice in the processes of Christian formation in a household.

The third of the four themes claims, 'a love ethic of mutuality is more intelligible when stated within a theory of the marital and human life cycles.' Participation in love as mutuality and equal regard occurs within a life-cycle context of the household. Life cycles is seen as the combination of 'the natural processes of growth and decay' (the cycle of birth, growth, aging and death) and 'historically situated narratives' (for example family traditions). This aspect of mutuality and equal regard is important for Christian formation, because 'family formation is a process of biological, psychological, historical, and religiocultural negotiation' that takes place as part of the covenant of intersubjective dialogue.

It becomes a 'dialogue between diverse narrative identities' (of which the Christian narrative is obviously an all-important one in the household of Christians) that 'gives stability to the natural dimensions of family formation.'

Browning et al use hermeneutic theory (with specific reference to Hans-Georg Gadamer) to show how ideals and positive visions play a vital part in the processes of dialogue in a household, and how these ideals and visions are also entangled with images of the divine . Therefore, it is not only the narratives of the members of the household that play a vital part, but also the narratives of broader historical traditions and traditions of wider communities such as religiocultural traditions. They put it as follow: 'Images of the divine mediated by tradition and parent-shaped images of the divine interact and modify each other to varying degrees, depending on our patterns of socialization. Therefore, because God-images inherited from tradition help us reconstruct images of our human parents, who are experienced as divine, it makes a big difference what our traditions tell us about the nature of God's love, trustworthiness, forgiveness, or suffering.'

Against this background of processes of dialogue within the context of life cycles of a household, Browning et al also makes a very helpful analogy between love as equal regard and Erik Erikson's definition of generativity. Erikson's definition of generativity, from a developmental psychology perspective, is 'the concern in establishing and guiding the next generation.' Although Erickson uses 'generativity' as an adult virtue, Browning et al apply it as an ethical principle 'that blends the ordo caritas (the formal character of equal regard) with the ordo bonorum (the premoral developmental needs that love meets and actualizes).' It involves both parents and children, and it refers to 'a deepening experience of mutuality between parent and child' where both need each other to meet the developmental needs throughout the life cycle of the household.

One of the most important aspects in this process of generativity is the need for mutual recognition. The growing of capacities for mutuality and equal regard in a household starts at a very early stage with mutual recognition taking place between parent and infant, which lays the foundation for a life of dialogue between them as a way in which both the parent and child get a sense of their lives being enriched by the other. This mutual recognition obviously also takes on dimensions of religious experiences within households where religious sensibilities are part of the narratives in that household. The nature of this recognition in each other is of the utmost importance from a missional perspective. In the third part of this paper, when considering the nurturing of a culture of the table as a practice to achieve Christian formation from a missional perspective, the aspect of recognition features prominently.

The fourth (and last) theme entails the importance of putting the household in perspective with relation to the Kingdom of God. Browning et al sum it up as follow: 'As important as families are, they must be seen as subordinate to both the reign of God and the common good.' It is imperative from a missional point of view to reject any form of family idolatry. Such a rejection does not come in the form of a 'repressive view' in which family affections are completely repressed or rejected. It rather presents a 'transformative view' in which family affections are transformed and extended for the purposes of a wider community, 'all the way to the universal community or family of God.' This view on a family is not only very important from a missional point of view, but also helpful to deliberate on the partnership between household and Church.

It is the contention in this paper that a missional vocation to the household, as well as a missional interpretation of Christian character and identity formation in the household, has to revolve around the cultivation of love as mutuality and equality as a covenant of intersubjective dialogue in which narrative identities become the sources for self-giving and doing good to each other through processes of generativity and recognition, and for the sake of society and the larger good of God's Kingdom. It is also the contention in this paper that the nurturing of a culture of the table presents itself as an appropriate missional practice for actualizing such a cultivation of Christian formation in the household.

Nurturing a culture of the table in the household

Nurturing a culture of the table is an appropriate practice for achieving the basic objectives described (above) in the outline for a practical theology that guides the cultivation of a household setting in which Christian formation can take place with missional intention. This paper presents four reasons for such a contention:

First, a culture of the table as a Christian practice sensitize those who sit around the table to the presence of God, and, by participating at the table, presents an opportunity to understand the Gospel itself.

A missional interpretation of Christian formation in the household would first of all point to the vocation of a people who always lives in the presence of the One who appoints or summons them. Paul Stevens says, 'The Christian doctrine of vocation... starts with being called to Someone before we are called to do something.' Christian identity formation starts at the continuous creation of an awareness that we belong to God and live in His presence. Having meals and participating in the culture of the table is a uniquely Christian way of creating such awareness.

A necessary link between the Eucharist and our daily meals makes this possible. Peterson views a culture of the table as 'the most accessible and natural occasion for cultivating the focal practice of the Eucharist in our daily lives.' An understanding of the relationship between the Meal and our meals is of crucial importance for creating a sense of God who is in our midst. Christine Pohl describes it as follow: '...in the context of shared meals, the presence of God's Kingdom is prefigured, revealed, and reflected.' A shared meal is an activity 'most closely tied to the reality of God's Kingdom.'

Jesus Himself chose the meal as a focal practice for bringing the Kingdom of God into the lives of people. Our meals become the settings for bringing all those narratives of Jesus' participation in meals into our own identity formation. Meals help us to remember all those stories of Jesus that empowered previous generations of Christians to embody God's graciousness in their own lives and the lives of other people. In this way, a culture of the table becomes the setting for understanding the Gospel itself.

The ultimate way in which this is true, is of course to understand the meal within the context of Jesus' sacrifice at the cross. Peterson says, 'The word that pulses at the center of the holy Eucharist and the meals in our homes alike is 'sacrifice'.' Our meals remind us of the focal event of Jesus' work of salvation, namely to sacrifice Himself at the cross. There is nothing more difficult, says Peterson, than removing the matter of sacrifice 'from the pages of sacred Scripture... into the assumptions and practices of our everyday Christian lives.' Moreover, as already indicated in the outline for a practical theology for the household, sacrifice is a necessary feature of a uniquely Christian understanding of love as mutuality or equal regard. Meals, as a reference to the great Sacrifice, can help us cultivating the spirit of sacrifice that renews our mutuality and equal regard over and over again. Peterson puts it as follow: 'For a people like us, trained in a culture of getting things done (pragmatism) and taking care of ourselves (individualism), sacrifice doesn't seem at all obvious; neither does it seem attractive.'

Meals help us not to avoid this crucial dimension of our Christian lives by making sacrifice local and immediate. Peterson shows how 'a meal prepared and served to family and guests is a giving up of ourselves for another' and how 'food on the table is life given and offered so that others can live.' In this way, 'preparing and cooking, serving and eating meals' can bring a 'daily structure to our participation in the work of salvation' that is missional by its very nature - a way of life that does not keep the blessings of the Lord to yourself, but that give away the grace of the Lord to others, and in the process giving something of yourself away.

Second, a culture of the table as a Christian practice cultivates a covenant of intersubjective dialogue that enhances personal relationships of mutuality and equal regard.

A missional vocation to Christian character and identity formation in the household reflects the spirit of a theologia crusis that only knows the narrative of Jesus as the One who was not only prepared to give Himself for other people, but also to engage with them in settings of dialogue. It is contrary the spirit of theologies of glory that 'mission to' people in a rather truimphalistic and paternalistic manner as a cause or project that needs to be completed as efficiently as possible. A way to intentionally and deliberately promote dialogue as part of the household culture is to nurture a culture of the table as a setting that cultivates mutuality and equal regard.

A culture of the table that creates space for intersubjective dialogue is of course totally counter-cultural. This paper earlier referred to the work of Borgmann with regard to the influence of an increasingly technological society on the morals of society. Peterson also picks up the same theme on how 'the machine and its metaphors have dominated not only the way we live but the way we talk about the way we live.' A culture of the table counters the technological culture of society that wants things done quickly and efficiently, because 'meals take time, meals are inefficient, meals are not 'productive'.' It cultivates a regard for people that values and respect them, rather than reducing them to commodities.

Unfortunately, 'the centrality of the meal in our lives is greatly diminished. We still eat, of course, but the intricate cultural world of the meal has disintegrated. The exponential rise of fast-food meals means that there is little leisure for conversation; the vast explosion of restaurants is evidence that far less food preparation and clean-up takes place in homes; in many homes the television set is the dominant presence at family meals, virtually eliminating personal relationships and conversation; the frequency with which pre-prepared and frozen meals are used erodes the culture of family recipes and common work.' That presents the challenge of creating a culture of the table where food and conversation is closely linked. 'Around a dinner table,' says Pohl, 'family and guests share food and life.' The focus is on people rather than the food.

To sit around a table at home and have fellowship with one another is 'an important way of recognizing the equal value and dignity of persons.' The table is the place of intersubjective dialogue where everyone's contribution is valued. It is the setting for expressing care, respect, recognition, and equality. This paper emphasized the importance of mutual recognition in the outline for a practical theology of the household that cultivates Christian formation. The table is the setting for nurturing recognition as part of Christian character formation, because the table presents an excellent opportunity to 'respecting the dignity and equal worth of every person and valuing their contributions, or at least their potential contributions, to the larger community.' Recognition cannot be sustained on the level of abstract commitments. It can only be exercised in concrete situations as is presented by a culture of the table.

Recognition also has a strong missional implication to it. The challenge, from a distinct Christian point of view, is to recognize the value and contribution of those who are rejected by dominating cultures and society. Therefore, it is appropriate to include at the table those that are the most vulnerable in society (the poor and neediest) whose sense of dignity have been affected by cultures that generally do not value the marginalized in their midst. Recognition becomes a way of 'welcoming persons of different status and background into a single place and often a shared meal.' Within the context of Christian hospitality, meals become far more than merely a pleasant practice. It becomes a counter cultural means to be subversive to society's way of regarding a valuing people in a consumerist culture. Meals are the means to point to a different value system in dealing with relationships.

In this way, a culture of the table can become the setting for transcending boundaries of class, race and close friendships. Hospitality was the mark of the early church in distinguishing it from the rest of its surroundings, and in establishing the authenticity of the gospel. Moreover, it was especially meals that provide the setting for hospitality as a missional practice in households. Meals brought the members of the household into the reality of struggling with cultural boundaries. Pohl has the opinion that we, as the church, find ourselves in a similar situation today with regard to our missional vocation: 'We, like the early church, find ourselves in a fragmented and multicultural society that yearns for relationships, identity, and meaning. Our mobile and self-oriented society is characterized by disturbing levels of loneliness, alienation, and estrangement.' It is the missional vocation of the household, through the practice of shared meals with strangers, to become the sacrament of God's love to the world.


Third, a culture of the table as a Christian practice reclaims the moral dimension of the habit of hospitality as a way of life.

By nurturing a culture of the table, those who sit around the table are also nurtured into a habit of hospitality. It is not within the scope of this paper to explore the rich meaning of the tradition and practice of hospitality as such, but the advantages for Christian formation is clear in the way that Pohl describes it: 'To raise hospitable children... you must be what you are trying to teach... Children learn hospitality from parents who have room in their lives for their family as well as for their guests. Children will resent hospitality if it is not broad enough to include them, but they will grow into hospitality as they share in its life-giving environment.' Hospitality is a way of life that you can only cultivate over a long period.

Hospitality is fundamental to the formation of Christian identity, but unfortunately, it 'lost its moral dimension'. The meaning of the word changed in modern times to a popular usage more related to 'tea parties, bland conversation, and a general atmosphere of coziness.' It has generally been reduced to 'a nice extra if we have the time or the resources' , but does not carry in the essence of it a moral obligation that is an integral part of a true expression of Christian life any more.

One of the main reasons for that is the reduction of hospitality to mere entertainment or commerce. There is always the temptation to use hospitality as a means for entertaining other, and for using it to achieve advantages from those who are entertained. It is part of the instrumental way of thinking in a commercialized and technological society. 'We continually ask,' says Pohl, '...what will it accomplish?' or '...how is it useful?' Hospitality becomes a means to an end, rather than a way of life that imitates the very essence of the Gospel.

Real hospitality, contrary to entertainment, carries within itself an openness to the stranger who is not part of the family or close friends. Pohl warns against the risk 'in focusing our hospitality on those closest to us' and to 'become so oriented to friends and family that there is no room or time for others who have few friendship and family networks to sustain them.' At the centre of Christian formation in the household is the missional intention to nurture a hospitality toward the stranger. Hospitality, and consequently the opportunity that a culture of the table presents, is integrally part of the Christian vocation to witness. In both the Old and New Testament, hospitality was strongly associated with an explicit and essential expression of the gospel. In the early church, it played a crucial role in the spreading of the gospel and establishing the credibility thereof. Hospitality was never optional for Christians, and neither was it an activity only for those who are 'gifted' to do it. It is at the heart of the gospel's missional intention.

Fourth, a culture of the table as a Christian practice provides the opportunity for the household's partnership with the Church.

The location of hospitality in ancient times was, although not exclusively, primarily the household. There are many examples from both the Old and New Testament. However, it is important to notice that hospitality also transcends the household as such. Pohl talks about the 'overlap of household and church'. Hospitality experienced in the household refers to a more fundamental reality of which the church is an equally important location. Part of the reason for the lost of a moral dimension to hospitality is the effect of urbanization and industrialization that brought about smaller and more private households.

This paper conclude with a quote from Pohl: 'The future of Christian hospitality is partly tied to the future of the home and family. Recovering hospitality will involve reclaiming the household and the church, so that the two institutions can work in partnership for the sake of the world.' On how to assist the household in its missional vocation to nurture a culture of the table as a setting for Christian formation is really the challenge for the Church's own missional vocation. This paper pleads for a creative effort in developing processes and programs to fulfill that vocation.

< Vorige		Volgende >