Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

On the other hand, the “beggar” is curtly informed, apparently whether
there is a shortage of seats or not, that he can either remain standing, as long
as he is unobtrusive and out of the way (Note the dismissive, “Stand there”),
or sit on the floor, as long as he is “segregated” and out of sight (Note the
humiliating, “Sit at my feet”) (Moo, 1985, 89), or “Sit under/by my footstool”
(Burdick, 178). In short, he should not catch the attention of anyone, bother
anyone or interfere with anyone. This treatment could not have been more
humiliating! The personal pronoun “my” (“Sit down at my feet”) may imply
that someone might give up his seat to accommodate the rich, but would not
do this for the poor (Mitton, 84). The long and the short of it is, that the covenant
community identifies itself with the (ostentatious) rich, keeps the (despicable)
poor at arms’ length, and basically wishes that they were not there,
somehow would go away, or at least be invisible (Cargal, 113). Frankly, it is
nothing short of astounding that Christians can be so callous in simultaneously
dehumanizing themselves by licking the boots of some, and dehumanizing
others by treating them like dirt.
It is quite possible that all this reflected Roman culture, where "the poor
were faceless nothings in the eyes of the wealthy” (Nystrom, 117). If this is
the case, the ungodliness in view is not only "personal," but also "structural"
in nature. It would not be the first time in the history of either Church or
world that wicked institutional traditions or societal mindsets foist a social,
political, ideological, or religious correctness upon people that first brainwashes,
then blindsides, and finally straightjackets them into an appalling
conduct. Customarily acknowledged past evils, such as slavery, the holocaust
and “apartheid,” have become celebrated targets that paint a picture of tyrannical
structural forces gone terribly awry.
It is the height of irony, however, that recently a different kind of oppressive
force has begun to emerge that seeks to disenfranchise anyone, who
sheds biblical light upon societal ills, such as feminism, abortion and homosexuality.
The admitted structural societal evils of the “right” are now rapidly
overtaken by similar evils of the “left.” In each instance they were, and are,
promoted as socially or politically “correct,” accompanied with at times
black-balling, if not life-threatening, sanctions for the “incorrect.” The
Church all too frequently backed the former evils. As a result of this, it
gravely compromised its prophetic voice. When the historical tide finally
turned, it had lost much of its relevance. In facing the later evils it is possibly
in an even greater danger. This time it is bluntly told not just to tolerate sin,
but to endorse, if not actively support it, or even to participate in it. The question
is now, whether it will stand up under the attack or forfeit its birthright.
Unless it goes against the societal grain, it opts by definition for the latter!
476