Beware of “Hospitality”
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bubulum Stercus.”
Thus saith W.C. Fields. Well, the Latin part was not originally in Latin.
We do not live in the Age of Reason, nor the Age of Aquarius, nor the Information Age. We live in the Age of Bubulum Stercus. We are constantly subjected to BS in the form of corporate buzzwords and linguistic shell-games designed to lead people to conclusions without the opportunity to think through the implications. And these kinds of Bubulum Stercus are often put forth by “experts” - real or imagined - as a means to exert undue influence and compel assent without giving the listener a fair shot to accept or decline the terms objectively.
As the kids say, caveat emptor.
The Emperor’s New Clothes is a fitting parable of this kind of thing. It is inherently dishonorable because it lacks full disclosure. We see this in corporate America, in politics, and in the advertising world - and now we see it in the church as well.
There is a new cadre of ecclesiastical entrepreneurs advocating mission statements and branding and “best practices” as a solution for the age-old problem that the world hates both Jesus and His church.
One of the weasel words used by the modern-day incarnation of the Church Growth Movement is “hospitality.” Beware of “hospitality.”
Genuine hospitality is a good and godly thing. It is required of pastors and encouraged for all Christians as they are able. The Greek words are φιλοξενία, φιλόξενος, and ξενοδοχέω. These words all mean showing kindness to guests. These words are found in Romans 12:12, Hebrews 13:2 , 1 Tim 3:2 and 5:10, Titus 1:8, and 1 Pet 4:9. They are closely related to the word ξενίζω (usually rendered “to lodge” in the ESV), found many times in Acts (chapters 10, 17, 21, and 28) - though in 1 Pet 4 it is used in the sense of being surprised.
And lest someone simply accuse me of not understanding the concept - or implying that I’m anti-hospitality, I’ll just point out that I have lived 21 years in the New Orleans area. Hospitality fuels our economy and runs deep in our culture. We know how to treat guests - in our church and in our region - and we love doing so. One of the advantages of living in a culture of hospitality is that it comes naturally to us. We don’t have to AstroTurf it with assigned greeters doing a job with fake smiles and a script.
I have often called for hospitality to be better practiced among Christians - especially when it comes to travel. Hotels are expensive. Where we are able, we should consider hosting our brothers and sisters in our homes. My wife and I live in a tiny house, but some dozen years ago, it was a great joy to host a soon to be married Lutheran couple, one at a time, who were relocating to our area. They - and their now six children (including the one we are all eagerly awaiting to be born) - are beloved members of our parish. Our deacon and his wife have hosted countless visitors from all over the world for many years. I could not ask for a more hospitable parish.
Until the pandemic, I spent several years as an Uber driver. I gave thousands of people rides in my car. I saw my job as one of hospitality. Getting passengers safely from point A to point B was paramount. But I also made sure that my car was immaculate, and that my guests were comfortable and happy. I wore a jacket, and conducted myself with utmost professionalism. When my passengers wanted silence, I gave them silence. If they wanted me to play tour guide, I did just that. On rare occasions - such as when I encountered someone who was deeply troubled or suicidal - would I offer pastoral care. Almost all of the time, my passengers were not there for me to catechize them - other than plying my vocation as a driver well. I even drove LCMS families who were in town for some kind of LCMS youth gathering that I had heard about.
So I know what real hospitality is. And I consider it of utmost importance.
And that’s why I find it so vulgar when the word is abused and misused - turned into a “magic word” to achieve an agenda.
Here are some examples:
Pronoun Hospitality
The argument is made - even among some in our circles of Lutheranism - that if a man wants to be called by feminine pronouns - or vice versa - we should do this as a matter of “hospitality.” Or if a single person wishes to be addressed as if he were a plurality (“they/them”), we should do that. And even if we are asked to engage in the use of completely made-up and nonsensical pronouns for a whole range of imaginary sexual identities, we should do that as well - as if this is what Scripture means by “hospitality.”
But we cannot to this without violating Scripture (and its clear and explicit teaching by our Lord Jesus Christ) by joining in the current rebellion against the divine order of sex. This form of compelled speech is really nothing more than bullying contrary to God’s Word. It should be a matter of confession to refuse to play along, and to call out the folks who are misusing the word “hospitality” in this way.
The use of “hospitality” as pro-homosexual manipulation is often applied to the destruction of Sodom. So the story goes, God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the unnatural and ungodly sodomy going on in that place - nor even for the desire of the “men of Sodom” to rape angels - it was rather because the Sodomites were not displaying “hospitality.” Yes, they should have offered a freshly-made hot cookie after engaging in unnatural sexual relations, and making it a policy to provide a mint on the pillow to the angels whom they tried to sexually assault. They should have practiced “sexual hospitality.”
Sacramental Hospitality
This term is has been appropriated from Roman Catholics regarding their policy of sharing sacraments with those who are not in full communion with Rome under certain dire circumstances.
It is used among some Lutherans as a euphemism for “open communion” - which, considering the intimacy of the Lord’s Supper, can sound almost like “open marriage.” Rather than invite such a comparison, it is strategically better to sell open communion as a matter of welcoming guests - hence “sacramental hospitality.” It makes one wonder how long before “open marriages” will be called “matrimonial hospitality.” There is a new term: “polyamory” which is an attempt to normalize promiscuity. Of course, whether you call it “open communion” or “sacramental hospitality,” it really is nothing other than “eucharistic promiscuity” and an unscriptural abuse of proper pastoral oversight for the good of the communicant.
And if Scripture is to be believed, actual hospitality to guests is to prevent them from taking the Holy Sacrament to their harm. Communing Roman Catholics is also to interfere in the person’s pastoral relationship with his own pastor - as Roman Catholic canon law forbids communion at our altars - technically being a kind of self-excommunication. Better to avoid such matters in the name of being “welcoming” (or is it really just cowardice or laziness?).
One of my members many years ago nailed it. She said that open communion is common here in the South, since it is a maxim that we offer food to guests. And I realize that this is true in other regions as well. But for us in the South - especially in South Louisiana - food is central to hospitality.
And perhaps this was the justification years ago for allowing a pastor to conduct the chapel service at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, and, as part of his sermon, to distribute slices of pizza to those gathered in the chapel for worship, where they ate it during the service. This kind of profanation of the holy is a form of hospitality towards entities that we should be expelling rather than welcoming.
Contextual Hospitality
“Contextual hospitality” is a circumlocution for “ditch the liturgy.” It is based on the assumption that offering only a traditional service with a hymnal is inhospitable. Those who use this term would deny it, though, arguing that it’s all based on “context.” In other words, worship is a completely subjective matter - which ignores the reality that the One being worshiped is objective, and that God Himself has taught us that worship is objectively holy, not common or vulgar according to context. The “best practice” according to contextual hospitality experts (as practiced in their own congregations) is to offer both a liturgical and a non-liturgical option for guests - like offering hotel patrons the choice between smoking or non-smoking, one king or two double beds, or the option of either a continental breakfast in the lobby or a late-check out.
The argument is silly on its face, and the buzzwordy nature of the term is a big red flag.
The Rev. Hans Fiene exposed the fallaciousness of the entire idea:
But specifically, how is Arizona different from Minnesota or Iowa with regard to worship? You don’t have a separate civilization in Arizona that has been living there for hundreds of years and that has organically developed different customs over generations. You have a bunch of Americans, many of whom are midwestern transplants, people who consume the same media and read the same books and eat the same food and speak the same language. You have many cradle Lutherans who grew up mostly using TLH or LW. And it wasn't that long ago that worship at any given LCMS church in suburban Phoenix was pretty much the same as what you'd find in rural Minnesota, at a time when those cultures were far less homogenous!
It’s just disingenuous to claim that, because there are more taco restaurants in Arizona or more multi-generational families in the midwest that we should expect LCMS Lutherans in one place to use the hymnal and LCMS Lutherans in the other not to. Likewise, you have congregations all over the midwest that look exactly like yours, just as there are congregations in Arizona where the worship is indistinguishable from what you'd find at mine. This line about doing ministry to fit your context was one I first heard from the senior pastor of a large LCMS church when I was in Denver. “We’re doing ministry for our context, you’re doing it for yours,” he said to the pastor of another congregation six miles away, made up of people who were demographically indistinguishable from his own.
This is not a serious argument. It’s pious sounding verbiage. You’re doing things this way because you like them and because you serve a congregation of people who like them. You don’t have a separate culture. You have people gathered around different aesthetic preferences from those at traditional congregations.
And this is the great problem.
What you’re really doing by hiding behind the “contextual hospitality” line is validating the revivalist notion that what connects people to God and brings them into His presence is the emotional response they get from the style of worship. “Just pick whichever style makes you feel more plugged into God.” But what draws people closer to God is the word, rightly preached and proclaimed. That's why the great treasures of Lutheran hymnody are so valuable. If someone would rather not sing those because he doesn't feel connected to God through “traditional” forms of worship, the solution is to fix the false view of conversion and faith, not to pretend that we're dealing with different cultures.
4th century Milanese Christians having a foot washing ceremony and 4th century Romans not having one is not the same thing as one LCMS church using the historic liturgy and Lutheran hymns and another LCMS church three miles away not doing those things. I've had people visit my congregation, lifelong LCMS folks, who have never seen a hymnal and are utterly baffled by our service. They live closer to my church than I do and belong to congregations just minutes away, but they’d be far more comfortable at one of the nearby evangelical congregations. Why? It’s not because we have different cultures. It’s because we have different beliefs.
That’s why our worship isn’t the same.
Moreover, the old “seeker-sensitive” model (which has been given a make-over and warmed over) as carried out by Lutheran churches as a matter of hospitality (so-called) often involves not only abolishing the Mass, replacing altar, font, and pulpit with stage, drum kit, and bar stool - but also offering Holy Communion (if that is indeed what is happening there) less frequently. It is a decidedly inhospitable practice for members and visitors who hunger and thirst for the Holy Sacrament on the Lord’s Day.
It is also inhospitable for those dear souls who, seeking a liturgical service and hymns out of the hymnal - are forced to pack up their families every Sunday and drive for an hour or more, driving past several “contextually hospitable” LCMS congregations who “do church differently” and contextually.
So yes, let us practice genuine hospitality. Let our worship be holy, and not profane. Let us be not only confessional in our believed and confessed theology, but authentic in our practice of Word and Sacrament. Let our ‘yes’ be ‘yes,’ and let our ‘no,’ be ‘no.’ But as for the buzzword bubulum, let’s leave that for the world’s fakers: the wheelers-and-dealers who are trying to sell us widgets with the shell-game of wonky wordsmithery.