Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64Radical Hospitality P redictability pretty much goes out the window and possible danger comes in when people engage in radical hospitality, the third level. This is offering hospitality to a stranger whose life choices or circumstances have rendered him or her unsavory or even repugnant. It is extended to unsettling types—those individuals most people would never consider entertaining in their family rooms. You enter into radical hospitality when reaching out poses a very real risk. Radical hospitality is reflected in an insightful saying: The true character of people is measured by how they treat those who they know can do nothing for them. The perfect example of radical hospitality is shown by the Samaritan in Luke 10:25–37. Messy? Check. Inconvenient? Check. Possibly dangerous? Check. Probably added expenses? Check. Likely long-term engagement? Check. Radical hospitality requires you, by and large, to be “your brother’s keeper.” Radical hospitality is not a popular concept today, what with America’s “compassion fatigue” and aversion to people plagued with problems (some of it being justified). But even if the prob- lems are not apparent, North Americans still have a fear of strangers, even if we don’t like to admit it. Welcoming Strangers? Y es, as Christians, we know that Scripture tells us to welcome strangers, but some of Bowling Alone author Robert Putnam’s more recent research confirms that American communities seems to show that levels of trust and cooperation are highest in the most homoge- nous neighborhoods. People living in diverse areas, it turns out, are not just more suspicious of people who don’t look like them; they are also more suspicious of their own kind. In other words, the more strangers we encounter the more we “hunker down” and avoid them—and, interestingly, also end up avoiding “our own kind.” The proof of this can certainly be seen overseas. Our son, Jesse, and his family are missionaries in Sweden. That country has tried to be the poster child for tolerance and acceptance, welcoming in hundreds of thousands of refugees over the last two years in hopes of showing the world what genuine inclusion looks like. Generally speaking, it has been a social disaster in all of the urban areas where there has been an influx of strangers. The concept of community is struggling. As I look at the cultural landscape, it seems to me that the best example of radical hospitality is found in rescue missions that embrace the “city gate” concept, offering those who are aban- doned and without any meaningful relationships much-needed protection, assistance, counsel, opportunities, and hope through Jesus. Indeed, rescue missions can be a prime place for radical hospitality, as long as relationships are an achieved goal. Without the relationships, you simply have a setting for institutional entertaining. Ĩ 20 WWW.AGRM.ORG MARCH/APRIL 2017 John is the president of AGRM. Contact him at jashmen@agrm.org. Radical hospitality is reflected in an insightful saying: The true character of people is measured by how they treat those who they know can do nothing for them.