In a brief essay on Front Porch Republic, Mark T. Mitchell suggests that we “rethink the meaning of cultural engagement,” as “‘engaging’ culture in the idiom of warfare has not produced much in the way of results.” The post, originally from September, seems particularly apt in the wake of a highly contentious election.
Taking inspiration from a passage in the second-century Letter to Diognetus—which says that Christians “have a common table, but not a common bed”—Mitchell argues that “hospitality is a radical alternative to both the language and practice of culture wars.” He continues:
In the ancient Greek world, as in some cultures today, hospitality is a central concern. To practice hospitality to strangers is considered a duty demanded by virtue. The author of the book of Hebrews goes even further when he writes: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” To practice hospitality is to open one’s home and thereby one’s concern to others. It is to shake off the narrow and narrowing confines of self-interest and attempt to love one’s neighbors, which, according to Christ, is the second great commandment after loving God.
When we share a common table, we necessarily cease, at least for a time, from contending against each other as our attention turns toward rejuvenating our physical bodies. We can lay aside differences as we join in one of the most basic of human activities. As we share food and drink, our common humanity is starkly revealed. Good food and good drink facilitate, nay almost demand, conversation, and conversing over a shared meal is a means by which differing ideas are mellowed by the common activity undertaken by all. Hospitality breeds friendship, and friends often disagree, but disagreements between friends are of an entirely different nature than disagreements between avowed enemies.
Granted, there are obstacles to such hospitality today—long work hours, over-booked schedules, TV-watching habits—but it is certainly not impossible to practice it. Hospitality is even possible in neighborhoods whose families have very different religious and political views, in my (admittedly limited) experience.
At the very least, a renewed culture of hospitality could help debunk what seems (at least on the Internet) to be an operating assumption of Americans on both sides of our religious-cultural-political divides: the belief that our “enemies” are almost uniformly malevolent and unintelligent. At best, of course, hospitality does much more than that: It (re-)incarnates the gratuitous, universal love of God in a particular place and time. Which sounds like a tradition worth reviving.
November 9th, 2012 | 2:11 pm
It’s a great first step—a concrete step that is not insignificant. How can I love my neighbor if I don’t know my neighbor?
November 9th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
“I have a persistent daydream, and that daydream find me and the afore mentioned fools and frauds on my boat. We are in the middle of a passage, an easy one, like California to Hawaii. We have time on our hands. There’s no hurry.
There’s also no one there watching us. We are face to face, stuck with each other, with only ourselves and each other to impress. No reblogging, no commentary, no page views; at least not until we arrive at our destination and each of us (undoubtably) recounts our passage.”
context here:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/09/falling-out-of-love-with-hate-a-placeholder/
November 9th, 2012 | 2:53 pm
That is why peasants like me have such a rich and varied social life – We choose our friends, but God chooses our neighbours.
November 10th, 2012 | 6:25 pm
Wonderful! Reminds me of the happiness studies that show that having dinner with friends once a month produces the same psychic benefits as an additional $10k in salary (I think NYT 2009).
Also helps to explain how the disappearance of DC bi-partisan dinners parties with spouses has contributed to partisan rancor.
November 11th, 2012 | 9:08 pm
I am all for practicing hospitality, although there are some issues, such as respect for the Sanctity of every Human Life, and Respect for The Sanctity of Marriage and The Family, that one can not agree to disagree about, while remaining followers of Christ.
November 12th, 2012 | 11:49 am
Hospitality is an important virtue. Conviviality has many benefits.
But we routinely hear this refrain: if we were just nicer to people who hate us, things would be so much better!
Horse feathers.
The present cultural malady of this society is not that we don’t have enough dinner parties. The cultural malady of this society is that large contingents of it hate God, His Church and Her ministers, and the Truth. These people will not change their minds in this regard simply because their orthodox Christian neighbors know where to find the best prosciutto or have a sophisticated nose for pairing wine.
Permit me to offer a diametrically opposed proposal: the time for being cordial has come to an end.
We have witnessed in recent months a persistent drum beat of journalists, academics, pundits, and others mouthing a shocking array of barbarisms at observant Christians (actually, let us be honest: most Christians believe nothing to which these people object much; they’re after Catholics). We see supposedly respectable people describing us as a threat to the polity, or saying that religiously motivated decision making in a commercial setting is unlawful (to take some of the rather more tame examples).
These people should not be welcome at our dinner tables, or in our living rooms or gardens, or in any other place where observant Christians congregate, while they persist in such views. To act otherwise, frankly, is to lie: it is to say that we, as Christians, regard the behavior of these people as socially permissible, that we find such people to be acceptable role models for our children, and that we are content to live in a society in which the ideas they espouse are accepted.
We would not invite into our homes an unrepentant advocate of terrorism, serial killing, rape, or the proliferation of pornography. Why should we invite there an unrepentant advocate of the extermination of Catholic institutions, the extirpation of Christian thought from public life, and laws compelling cooperation in intrinsically evil acts?
Society stands in sore need of a rejuvenated understanding of manners and social graces. But it needs a renewed conviction for the Truth much more. What it does not need is for people simply to be nice.
November 14th, 2012 | 11:15 pm
I whole heartedly agree that we must stand for Truth and that on occasion, and perhaps more often than that, we must fight. However, I do not require a litmus test before I invite my neighbors for dinner. As for our elected officials, I would never want for them to materially cooperate with evil. There are many things the parties do agree on, or are in close enough agreement on issues that they could negotiate (this does not include issues of abortion, same sex marriage, and the like). However, on issues where there is common ground (closing tax loopholes, possible immigration reform, Social Security reform, regulatory agency authority, etc) partisan rancor, pride, and cowardice have replaced a willingness to negotiate. There are plenty of studies that show that negotiations are more sucessful when the parties have closer personal relationships. Rather than vilify the “other” to score political points (when there is common ground), officials should attempt to actually accomplish something.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact