Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
He describes the love feast problem against the backdrop of Roman banquet culture (Juvenal, silver vs. tin, slaves watching for missing jewels), arguing the rich-poor table fellowship was revolutionary; what present-day church habits might be “normal” to us but equally shaped by our surrounding culture—and what would it look like to practice a truly countercultural table the way early Christians were learning to do?
Another way to ask: What church habits today might feel “normal” but are really shaped by our culture, like the rich-poor meal problem in Corinth? What would a truly countercultural shared table look like in our churches now?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript highlights that table fellowship can be deeply cultural; the early church had to unlearn status habits, so we should examine where our “normal” meals and church life still follow social class and comfort rather than deliberate shared fellowship.
- The Corinth issue: “the rich…weren’t sharing their food with the poor at the love feast” (1 Corinthians 11).
- He explains Roman banquet norms: the poor “weren’t even there,” and banquets were for “people like themselves.”
- Juvenal’s satire illustrates status: nobles ate with “silverware,” while a lower guest got “tin,” and a “slave…watching…no jewels missing.”
- He calls rich-poor eating together “radically new” and says it “was taking a little time to get used to it.”
- He notes modern churches may “surpass them” in sharing food at fellowship meals, but warns we aren’t facing the same entrenched class system.