CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Indian context – need for healing
1.1 The Caste system in India
1.2 The poverty on Increase
1.3 The threat of Hindu Fundamentalism
2. Table Fellowship in the time of Jesus
2.1 An event of exclusiveness
2.2 An eschatological dimension of the practice
3. Table fellowship of Jesus
3.1 A sign of the rule of God
3.2 A strategy of inclusiveness
3.3 An expression of Jesus’ option
3.4 An act of fraternity
3.5 A response to Hunger
3.6 Celebrations of liberation
3.7 Going beyond the social boundaries
3.8 Hand in hand with the Eucharist
3.9 A resemblance of heavenly banquet
Conclusion
Introduction
In the rule of God everyone is loved; everybody is included; and each one is precious. Unfortunately our Indian society stands in contradiction to the rule of God by the fact that there is an upheaval of aversion and exclusion for each other on the ground of caste, religion, money, power etc. being conscious and concerned about establishing the rule of God one cannot but question seriously the suppression and exclusions thrusted upon so many people in India. Jesus, whose life was a deeper and fuller expression of the rule of God proved mainly through his table fellowship with the least of his society, how everyone is included in it. The table fellowship of Jesus would surely be very dynamic and revolutionary in transforming our Indian society into ‘a community of equality and brotherhood’ – which is actually the realization of the rule of God. It is because of this dream to be realized, I am keen as mustard to discuss the table fellowship of Jesus. My concern here is to present the various dimensions of table fellowship of Jesus and draw its lessons to our Indian context by engaging a sociological study.
1. Indian context – need for healing
‘Keep away’ is a common phenomenon which dominates in every realm of life in India. Though in its constitution India claims it to be a secular and democratic nation, all these are superseded by the caste system, religious fundamentalism, poverty, women oppression and so on. ‘You do not belong to us’ is a feeling which suppresses the kingdom feeling of Jesus in India. I would like to cite a few important spheres where Indian society suffers from the feeling of exclusion.
1.1 The Caste system in India
Indian society which would precisely be identified with the caste system keeps away one from the other. The term ‘outcastes’ undoubtedly witnesses this fact. The outcastes (?) form 22.5% of the total population of India. “The outcastes are thrown out of the residential areas of the four castes (Brahmins, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sutras) of the India community and are treated with contempts as untouchables and are segregated socially, religiously and culturally.”[1] Being very sensitive to one’s caste-identity and being mad with rage against the other castes, have victimized thousands of people in India. The Hindu Varnashrama Dharma has injected this venom of Viper in the blood of the Indians. How to bring them all under the rule of God? Should a Christian also be part of the victimizing or the victimized in India? Is it possible for the Indian Church to keep itself pure from the grips of the caste system?1.2 The poverty on Increase
A call to make India a powerful nation by the year 2020, is so ridiculing when thousands of her daughters and sons have a very little for their empty stomach. It is heart penetrating that “40 crores of people in India suffer from hunger everyday and this number exceeds the total number of the persons suffering from the same in the whole of Africa.”[2] It is mostly the money which makes many as friends and partners. The overflow of money with some families like Ambanis’ and Tata’s does not give any hope fore the poor in India. If this India shines it is only for those few families. The government is all the more a puppet in the hands of those few families. Thus, the poor are excluded from the mainstream of India. Aren’t the poor are supposed to be the beloved and blessed ones in the rule of God? Does Eucharist (the daily table fellowship of Christians) give any hope to the poor?1.3 The threat of Hindu Fundamentalism
The tragic experiences of the Christians and Muslims in India witness how the Hindu fundamentalism tries to do away with the people of other religions. The aims and strategies of Hindu fundamentalism do not give any room for religious harmony. While analyzing the nature of the Hindu fundamentalism we find that it is “reactionary, exclusivistic, separatistic, intolerant, oppositional, politically motivated, claming to be custodians of truth, claiming to be agents of true community...”[3] Can we just ignore this challenge while trying to establish the rule of God? Can the Church present an inclusive strategy against the exclusivistic strategy of the Hindu fundamentalism?2. Table Fellowship in the time of Jesus
The Jewish society in the time of Jesus kept up its spirit of claiming to be the only, pure, chosen community of God. Their table fellowships strengthened such a feeling of exclusiveness and superiority.
Table fellowship is primarily an expression of the Greek culture and so the Jewish society should have adopted the practice from the Greek culture. The place one was allotted in the table also signified the rank or the status of the person. Let us discuss the salient features of the table fellowship of the Jewish society.
2.1 An event of exclusiveness
It should have been unimaginable for a Jew to sit at the table with the Samaritans, tax collectors, sinners, lepers and all those considered to be impure. That’s why the Pharisees asked the disciple of Jesus,” Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (Mt 9:11) “Table fellowship in the first century Jewish society is primarily a movement towards exclusiveness and otherness.”[4]
I would like to recall the words of the Samaritan woman in dialogue with Jesus, “How is that you, a Jew ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” If the Jews and Samaritans did not share a drink of water among them, then it should be undoubtedly accepted that they never sat at the table together.
Food has a significant part in the celebrations of any community. Dining together is an expression of joy with the beloved ones. Jews who had a pejorative attitude towards the so-called impure (culturally, religiously, physically etc.) were meticulously careful in keeping them away. Needless to say, that the table fellowship of the Jews was one of the strongest expressions of neglection and aversion towards others.
2.2 An eschatological dimension of the practice
Table fellowship of the Jews has the implications of the eschatological banquet. The Jews though that they would sit with God at the table as the only chosen race. Others who were condemned to be the sons and daughters of darkness would not have that privilege.
It was in the name of God and His blessing to their community excluded others. Being obsessed with the longing to dine with God, the most pure the Jews developed a dislike to dine with the impure. The Most Holy would act a host to the Jews at the eschatological banquet. Therefore, there is no place for the impure. Anyone was strongly condemned and penalized if acted against the eschatological dream of the Jews.
3. Table fellowship of Jesus
It is a cinch that the life of Jesus has carried to us every excellence and expressions of the rule of God. His teachings (especially parables), miracles and every event of his life brought to us the core message of the rule of God. Table fellowships with each and everyone were one of the most revolutionary ways of Jesus in witnessing the true nature of the rule of God. The most attractive element which deepens and challenges me is the inclusiveness of the table fellowship of Jesus. Having every conviction that the table fellowship of Jesus would play a redemptory role in transforming the India society, I love to discuss some of the beautiful dimensions of his table fellowship in chi chapter.
3.1 A sign of the rule of God
Establishing the rule of God was the main concern of Jesus. We have the gospel of John giving us the precise explanation of the rule of God in tune with the mind of Jesus. “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10) Therefore, the rule of God is an assurance of life in its fullness to everyone. Jesus was a guest to every one who called him and was generous himself to welcome everyone as his guests. Though Jesus invited everyone to the rule of God through his table fellowship, some did not pay any heed; some found fault; but some did turn up. What happened in the life of Zacchaeus (Lk 19: 1-10) is worth noting here.
Zacchaeus, being a chief tax collector would have certainly been a very rich man. But money could not give him the fullness of life. His craving for having a look at Jesus simply portrays that he was a man who really felt that something was really lacking in his life. In other words, he was yet to find the fullness in his life. As the narration goes in the gospel of Luke, we find that Jesus is willing to sit at the table with Zacchaeus. The man was lost in joy in dining with Jesus and realized the change in his life. Experiencing the fullness of life he wants to share the fruit of the change with others. He was brought into the rule of God by the table fellowship of Jesus. Thus the table fellowship of Jesus renders a call the rich in India to share with the poor generously and enter into the rule of God as Zacchaeus did.
3.2 A strategy of inclusiveness
Table fellowship of Jesus was a strategy against the exclusiveness of the Jews. Jesus was never selective in sharing a meal with. “Jesus loved party. He was not particular about who joined in his rejoicing.”[5] One’s power, caste, status, gender, sinfulness etc. does not matter to Jesus. That’s why he could stay in a Samaritan village. (Jn 4: 40) And no doubt that Jesus would have simply enjoyed the meals with the villagers.
I am sure that the table fellowship of Jesus was inclusive because, he had a positive approach towards everyone. Both the concepts of impurity and the only chosen race of God meant no importance to Jesus. He was prepare to meet any amount of criticism made on him regarding his table fellowships with the sinners, tax collectors, lepers and all other least ones in his society.
Those who disliked the inclusiveness of Jesus; table fellowship labeled him “ a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Lk 7: 34) But, Jesus knew very well the power of inclusiveness, expressed in his table fellowships.
3.3 An expression of Jesus’ option
Jesus personally had a longing to have his fellowship meals with lower strata of his society. His vision and mission for the neglected ones of the society are attested in his table fellowships. As a ma ready to die for his option, every move of Jesus was centered on the victimized section of his society. Therefore, his fellowship meals must have been very powerful expressions of his option.
Jesus said to the one who invited him for a meal, “When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.” (Lk 14:13) As Jesus ever remains the best example for doing the said thing, should have been himself expressing his option in his table fellowships.
3.4 An act of fraternity
When a friend visits us, we like to give him or her something to eat. Friends in a get- together want to go for a dinner in order to deepen their relationship. The gospels bestow us many examples of Jesus sitting at the table with his disciples, whom he preferred to call his friends. Those were occasions when Jesus made them feel close with him. The gospel of John beautifully narrates how one of his friends were reclining next to him during the last supper (Jn 13:25).
Jesus’ visits to Lazarus’s house at Bathany his deep relationship with Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary. Very interestingly we find that as soon as Jesus entered into their home, Martha became very busy preparing a meal for Jesus. She is said to be so worried and disturbed that she wanted the help of her sister also in cooking (Lk 10:40). According to the gospel, neither Jesus asked her to prepare a meal for him nor did she ask Jesus whether he liked to have a meal. It was a spontaneous expression of Martha as a friend to offer a meal and on the part of Jesus, it was a spontaneous act of fraternity to have a meal at his friend’s house.3.5 A response to Hunger
Table fellowship of Jesus with the crowd is a vibrant response to hunger. He was so compassionate and loving like a mother to feed her children. His table fellowship was a response to a very concrete problem of the people. He did not spiritualize the fellowship meals. He was disturbed while finding the people hungry and wanted to feed them by all means. “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat.” (Mk 8:2)
3.6 Celebrations of liberation
Fellowship meals of Jesus were great moments or events of celebration. He did not want to give a ritual face to the tale fellowship. His very presence was as a wedding feast. (Mk 2:19)
There was every reason to celebrate his fellowship meals because they were moments of liberation. Jesus recognized the worth of every individual and gave them an identity as his highly expected guests. An attempt to bring everyone closer to one another at the table was a liberative celebration.
Fellowship meals of Jesus were not merely a sharing of food but it was a joyful celebration too. It was a feast; not just a meal. For, “one may not be happy while taking the daily meals. When it is a feast, all those participate in it are supposed to be happy.”[6]
3.7 Going beyond the social boundaries
Every society has its brighter and darker sides. The courage to question and commit one’s life in order to enlighten the darkest sides on one’s society is found only with a few persons. Jesus’ table fellowships with the outcastes challenged the social barriers of his time.
The so-called protectors of culture, religion and society were enraged at the table fellowship of Jesus. They opposed saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Lk 15:2). Jesus broke all the social barriers which prevented the people from entering into the rule of God. And, as a matter of fact his table fellowships with the outcastes stand as the best examples for going beyond his social barriers.3.8 Hand in hand with the Eucharist
The presence of Jesus is felt and the experiences of Jesus are relived in the Eucharist. Prof. Valentine Joseph terms it as ‘mystical experience’[7]. Unless this mystical experience is expressed in one’s situation, it is as humbug as anything. And so, the God experience we have in the Eucharistic meal is bound to express itself in the social situations.
There were so many who hand the same mystical experience during the fellowship meals of Jesus. By participating in his table fellowship people felt a compulsion from within to change themselves and their society. At the braking of the bread the disciples found Jesus (Lk 24:30-31). And their life attested to that experience in their social situations. Like wise we need to find the same Jesus in the Eucharistic celebration and heal our social situations. Thus, both our daily Eucharist and the table fellowship of Jesus go hand in hand with each other due to the transformative power they provide us with.3.9 A resemblance of heavenly banquet
Jesus was convinced that everyone had a place I the heavenly banquet. This conviction was against the basic belief of the Jewish people. Jesus spoke from his conviction, “I tell you many will come from east and west and will sit with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 8:11)
The table fellowships of Jesus gave everyone who participated in the meals a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. God will offer a banquet not only for the Jews but for the entire humanity. Jesus who was in tune with the mind and heart of the Father hosted a banquet for all those who wanted to join him.
Conclusion
Any sort of exclusion of individuals or groups waters down the meaning of the table fellowship of Jesus. Any factor that causes exclusion in the India society should be confronted (care-fronted) by the Church. The Church being the mystical body of Christ has a moral obligation to keep alive the spirit of Jesus’ table fellowship by upholding an inclusive strategy in every concern. The Church which promotes directly or indirectly separation, exclusion, discrimination and aversion can in no way be called a Church of Jesus because, the Church would victimize the Indian society more and more, which is already worsened by various factors of division.
The daily table fellowship of Christians (Eucharist) should not fall prey to ritualism rather than instilling in the mind of the participants the transformative power of the table fellowships of Jesus. The Eucharistic celebration is bound to be a celebration of liberation, which would set the people unchained from the barriers of the Indian society. The Church which has amassed so much of wealth is also responsible for the penuries of the poor in India. The people are penniless but the Indian Church is so rich. And so, the Church has to prove itself a Church of the poor by unceasingly sharing with the poor its wealth, knowledge and God experiences.
The clergy live in a culture that they want to identify themselves the ones above their positions in the Church. In a dinner, bishops prefer to sit with the arch bishops, whereas priests rush to take their seats with the bishops. How many of us feel comfortable to sit with someone below our so-called status? Most of the times, we undermine the spirit of the table fellowship of Jesus by preferring to sit with the big-shots.
Every Indian needs to learn from Jesus the attitude of inclusiveness, found in fellowship meals. The Brahmins should long to have the dalits as their esteemed guests. Thereby, India would become a community of equality and brotherhood, where everyone will have life in fullness.
[1] Kencheria pathil, Trends in India Theology (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2005), p.39.
[4] Santos Yao, “The Table Fellowship of Jesus with the Marginalised: A Radical Inclusiveness”, in Journal of Asian Mission , 3/1 (2001), p.25.
[5] William Lunny J., The Jesus option (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p.131.
No comments:
Post a Comment