Progressive Christianity: Vol 3
March 31, 2005
3. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus’s name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God’s feast for all peoples…
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
“But they paid no attention and went off - one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22.1-14)
I love this parable. I have yet to do any exegetical work, or in-depth study with it, but I think that’s okay. What a beautiful story. All those who were invited never showed up…why? They had work to do; they had fields to take care of, business to be done, ministries to start and people to save…they gave up their spot at the wedding banquet table for who…? For nobody but the lowliest of the lowly…the nobodies…the ragamuffins. In the words of the king, he says, "Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet ANYONE you find." Anyone…he’s not getting picky now - the king has a banquet, a beautiful wedding banquet and he wants it to be experienced, shared and eaten by anyone who would come. There are now no restrictions…he wants anyone who will come. And so the servants go out to find the "anyone." And they bring them in: "…and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad" - no prerequesites here. Anyone is welcome. The good, the bad and the ugly. [Yah, I'll go ahead and acknowledge my WTF?! when it comes to the last paragraph and the guest who was not wearing the wedding clothes...anyone want to help me with that one?]
God’s table is where God wants us to be nourished…Come…all who are thirsty…come from the street corners…come you who are good and you who are bad…come and eat…
Tags: Liberal-Theology, Progressive Theology
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
March 31st, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Ah Adam, I will be nice.
You said;
All those who were invited never showed up…why? They had work to do; they had fields to take care of, business to be done, ministries to start and people to save…
You just can’t help yourself in getting that anti- (what you perceive as) evangelical slam in. This passage makes no such specific mention. This parable applies to any and all who reject the Lord, and do not heed the call.
As for your “wtf”;
Isaiah 61:
10I will greatly rejoice in the LORD;
my soul shall exult in my God,
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation;
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Romans 13: 14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
Galatians 3: 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
We put on Christ because it is the father who clothes us; much as we work out our salvation because it is HE who works it in us. We hear the call because we are chosen to. (Let he who has an ear ,hear)
Not only do we have those who reject the call outright, we also have those who try to get in wearing their own garments (their own righteousness). Many are called, but only those who have put on Christ, that is whom the Lord has clothed in salvation and righteousness, that is those who are chosen, get to be seated at the table. Kind of blows universalist/inclusivist salvation theories out of the water.
Romans 9: 10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call‚Äî12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
WTF indeed!
March 31st, 2005 at 3:30 pm
About the wtf?!?
I guess the thing that is hardest to deal with is the fact that the same king who accepts “the good and the bad” will also judge each and “throw [some] outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” How do these two contrasting ideas coexist? Is this king too judgemental, too intolerant, too harsh (yes…according to popular culture), or is he righteous, holy, and just.
The big question is:
Is there room in your view of God for him to be the judge that condemns some to death?
If there isn’t, than you better chose another God to follow than the Jesus of the Bible.
March 31st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
I’ve spent a lot of time over the years considering the guy in the last graph. Everyone is welcome, but he manages to get the boot. What strikes me is that the folks in the top of the story stayed away for poor reasons. I think this guy came for poor reasons - he is only half-heartedly there; hence the lack of a garment (which would have been provided on his way in, so its not like it was a hardship). I know scholars suggest that the parable is really two stories mashed together, but I find the combination very intriguing. At least it speaks to me since I often avoid God for pretty poor reasons and, when I do get around to time with God, it can often be half-hearted or something other than honest. I understand that God would rather have all of me, mixed bag that I am, but its still very easy to think that God would rather settle for half (the better half?) than accept me whole at this wedding banquet.
March 31st, 2005 at 5:50 pm
what does “wtf” mean?
March 31st, 2005 at 6:32 pm
It means “What the fuck?” Thanks for asking…
March 31st, 2005 at 7:17 pm
okay, here is my meager attempt at explaining the “wtf” in the last paragraph:
if you stop before the last paragraph, it seems like a pretty happy ending. ALL are welcome at the banquet, and even the lowliest of the lowly are brought in. then the king comes down and starts mingling and schmoozing and being all kingly and then he notices the one who apparently doesn’t belong. at that point he loses it, and throws the man out into the outer darkness. then comes the weeping and teeth gnashing.
it really brings the happy ending crashing down, and leaves us feeling uncertain and confused. and perhaps a bit called out, because we know that that person is us. we are the ones who don’t deserve to be at the banquet. we are not worthy to wear the robes and be guests at the banquet. By all accounts we should be bound and thrown into the outer darkness.
but this is not the way our story ends. five chapters after this parable, Jesus is arrested and bound and nailed to a cross. He weeps and cries out, wondering why God has forsaken him and left him in this darkness. The way our story ends is that Jesus is the one thrown out of the banquet on our account. Because Jesus has done this for us we are granted a place at the table. We can sit at the banquet of the Kingdom of Heaven because Jesus took our place in the outer darkness. We are welcome into the banquet because we are robed in Jesus’ righteousness.And the parable ends with the phrase ‚ÄúMany are called, and few are chosen.‚Äù We cannot claim who is chosen and who is not. It is not truly up for us to make this decision. We trust however, that our chosenness is rooted in Christ and what he has done for us.
That’s my take, anyway. Hope it helps.
March 31st, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Alas, I wonder the hallowed halls of Princeton and mourn the diminishing value of my degree…
In these texts, by those that are called, are not meant those who are visible saints, and have the requisite qualifications for Christian sacraments; but all such as have the eternal call of the Word of God, and have its offers and invitations made to them. And it is undoubtedly true, and has been matter of fact, for the most part, that of those called in this sense, many have been but only called, and never truly obedient to the call, few have been true saints. So it was in the Jewish nation, to which the parable in the twentieth of Matthew has a special respect; in general they had the eternal call of God’s Word, and attended many religious duties, in hopes of God’s favor and reward, which is called laboring in God’s vineyard; and yet but few of them eventually obtained salvation. Nay, great multitudes of those who were called in this sense, were scandalous persons, and gross hypocrites. The Pharisees and Sadducees were called, and theylabored in the vineyard, in the sense of the parable; for which they expected great rewards, above the Gentile converts or proselytes; wherefore their eye was evil towards them, and they could not bear that they should be made equal to them. But still these Pharisees and Sadducees had not generally the intellectual and moral qualifications, that my opponents suppose requisite for Christian sacraments; being generally scandalous persons, denying some fundamental principles of religion, and explaining away some of its most important precepts. Thus, many in Christendom are called, by the outward call
of God’s Word, and yet few of them are in a state of salvation. But not all who sit under the sound of the gospel, and hear its invitations, are fit to come to sacraments.
In these texts, by those that are called, are not meant those who are visible saints, and have the requisite qualifications for Christian sacraments; but all such as have the eternal call of the Word of God, and have its offers and invitations made to them. And it is undoubtedly true, and has been matter of fact, for the most part, that of those called in this sense, many have been but only called, and never truly obedient to the call, few have been true saints. So it was in the Jewish nation, to which the parable in the twentieth of Matthew has a special respect; in general they had the eternal call of God’s Word, and attended many religious duties, in hopes of God’s favor and reward, which is called laboring in God’s vineyard; and yet but few of them eventually obtained salvation. Nay, great multitudes of those who were called in this sense, were scandalous persons, and gross hypocrites. The Pharisees and Sadducees were called, and theylabored in the vineyard, in the sense of the parable; for which they expected great rewards, above the Gentile converts or proselytes; wherefore their eye was evil towards them, and they could not bear that they should be made equal to them. But still these Pharisees and Sadducees had not generally the intellectual and moral qualifications, that my opponents suppose requisite for Christian sacraments; being generally scandalous persons, denying some fundamental principles of religion, and explaining away some of its most important precepts. Thus, many in Christendom are called, by the outward call
of God’s Word, and yet few of them are in a state of salvation. But not all who sit under the sound of the gospel, and hear its invitations, are fit to come to sacraments.
JON
March 31st, 2005 at 7:51 pm
So, is the ghost of J. Edwards a redundant bumbling idiot, given that his post appears FOUR times…or is it just me who thinks this?…
March 31st, 2005 at 7:57 pm
…just TWO, so just you. At least you are consistent in your inaccuracies.
March 31st, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Forsooth! My dear Kellen is correct… please accept my apologies for posting FOUR times. And, in advance I will accept the apology of a man of the cloth for calling me a redundant bumbling idiot. And, in advance I will accept the apology of a man of the cloth for calling me a redundant bumbling idiot. I am just getting used to this whole frogging thing…
The second Paragraph of my post was supposed to be as follows:
That by those who are called, in this saying of our Savior, is meant those that have the gospel-offer, and not those who belong to the society of visible saints, is evident beyond all dispute, in Mat. 22:14. By the many that are called, are plainly intended the many that are invited to the wedding. In the foregoing parable, we have an account of those who from time to time were bidden, or CALLED (for the word is the same in the
original), Mat. 22:3, “And sent forth his servants to CALL them that were CALLED and they would not come.” This has respect to the Jews, who refused not only savingly to come to Christ, but refused so much as to come into the visible church of Christ. Mat. 22:4, “Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell
them which are bidden (or CALLED), Behold I have prepared my dinner,” etc. Mat. 22:8, “They which were bidden (or CALLED) were not worthy.” Mat. 22:9, “Go ye therefore into the high-ways, and as many as ye shall find, bid (or CALL,) to the marriage,” or nuptial banquet; representing the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles; who upon it came into the king’s house, i.e. the visible church, and among them one that
had not a wedding-garment, who was bound hand and foot, and cast out when the king came: and then, at the conclusion, Christ adds this remark, Mat. 22:14, “For many are CALLED or bidden, but few are chosen;” which must have reference, not only to the man last mentioned, who came into the wedding-house, the Christian visible
church, without a wedding-garment, but to those also mentioned before, who were called, but would not so much as come into the king’s house, or join to the visible
Christian church. To suppose this saying to have reference only to that one man who came without a wedding-garment (representing one that comes into the visible church, but is not a true saint), would be to make the introduction of this aphorism, and its
connection with what went before, very strange and unintelligible, thus, “Multitudes came into the king’s house, who were called, and the house was full of guests; but among them was found one man who was not chosen; for many are called, but few are
chosen.”
JON
March 31st, 2005 at 10:08 pm
All’s well that ends well, I suppose…
March 31st, 2005 at 11:57 pm
this whole blog merits a “WTF” - that goes for all evangliecal/emergent/whatever christianity
later
April 1st, 2005 at 12:54 am
Emergent Eucharist-ology: Holy Communion is a sacrifice and a meal.
These two aspects of the communion are inseparable. And since it is a banquet meal as well as a sacrifice, the place it is celebrated is a table as well as an altar. The altar, around which the church is gathered in the celebration of communion, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord.
The two aspects depend on each other: (a) it is a sacrifice so that it can be a banquet, and (b) it is a banquet only because it is a sacrifice:
A. Communion is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial (Hebrew: zkr) in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of communion sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ community.
B. But it is a banquet because it is a sacrifice, just as any earthly food can be eaten only because it is first killed and “offered” to eat. Whether animal or vegetable, its natural life is ended, given up to nourish the life of the one who eats it. “My life is yours” – this is the law of nature and grace. It is even the life of glory. Self-donation, the ecstatic coming out of the self and giving of the self in love, is the essence of our eternal life in heaven, because that is our sharing in the very inner life of the Trinity.
The “banquet” aspect of Holy Communion is not merely human comradeship or “fellowship” or “community”, good as those things are. It is intimate personal union with Jesus Christ, and this – only because of that, through him – with all Christians, not merely on a human level (see 2 Cor 5:16-17), as members of his Mystical Body, the body that is made by our common union (comm-union) in his eucharistic body.