Patronage, Gifts, and Grace

Welcome! Today as we continue our series on Shame and Honor, we are going to explore the concept of patronage and look at how Christ is the ultimate example of a good patron in all of history. We will then honor Him as our patron through remembering Him through the bread and the cup. My hope is that this somewhat different view of the role of Christ will make for a memorable and meaningful time of communion. Because we will also have a sharing time, our time is short, so I will forgo any kind of review except to remind you that past messages from this series can be found on our website.

What in the world is patronage, and what does it have to do with shame-honor societies? I most like Jayson Georges’ short definition of patronage: Patronage is a “reciprocal relationship between unequals”. What exactly do these words mean? Unequals means that one person, the patron, has significantly more money, influence, and other resources than the other person, who is called the client. Reciprocal relationship means that both parties, the patron and client, are expected to bring something to the relationship. As explained by Georges, “The patron provides protection, money, and resources” to the client, and “the client then repays the patron with loyalty, praise, gratitude, and honor.”

Note that repays is not in quotes! You may think that praise and gratitude, etc., are hardly a real repayment! For us to think this reveals our significant cultural bias against this kind of relationship. In fact, I would argue that of all the honor-shame concepts we have looked at so far in this series, patronage is the one our culture is most opposed to, most at odds with. In our culture, you do not repay “real” gifts with praise. You repay with money or a gift of equivalent value. People in an honor-shame culture would agree with you that you should repay with something of equivalent value! But they would say that honor and praise has value, great value, in fact. In contrast, our culture tends to think that praise is nice, but it has no value.

Is patronage sinful? No, but sinful people make a mess of patronage, just like they make a mess of everything else. As Georges points out, patrons can demand slave-like obedience from clients, and clients can gossip or complain when they don’t get endless provisions from the patron. But patronage can also be beneficial for all parties. The clients get help that they need, some of which is not at all about material gifts, by the way. For example, a patron may act as an intermediary to help some get help or establish a business relationship with a third party. And the patron establishes a reputation of being a good and helpful person, which also helps him in his business relationships. In the west we do see examples of corporate patronage, such as how Wal-Mart donates some money back to each community, but it is generally much more impersonal than what is found in an honor-shame culture.  Also, there is usually no expectation that the client reciprocate; instead, the corporation toots its own horn. So this is quite different.

Again, not only is patronage essentially absent in our culture, we are generally opposed to it. In an honor-shame culture, a person who has patron-like resources is expected to fulfill his role of a patron. Patronage is expected to be done locally, among the patron’s acquaintances, whether he sees them frequently or infrequently. To not fulfill one’s role as a patron is to invite shame upon oneself. (Remember that honor and shame are fundamentally communal characteristics, so that when I say invite shame upon oneself, I don’t necessarily mean that the patron internally feels shameful; instead, I mean that the whole community will treat the person as a shameful person.)

In contrast, in our culture, although we appreciate those who give generously, we have no expectations that the wealthy will do so, and we certainly do not place any demands on who or how this person gives. We tend to say it is nobody’s business, as a form of the golden rule, in that we also believe it is generally nobody’s business what we do with our money.  

Patronage is actually a very tricky thing when missionaries from the West come and live in poorer countries with honor-shame cultures. Frequently the westerner has thrust upon him the role of patron, because everyone knows that the country they come from is rich, and because, if the missionary has a “day job” it is usually a highly honorable profession such as medicine or engineering; if the missionary is not working, people presume he is so rich that he doesn’t need to work. The fact that missionaries typically bring conveniences of home only adds to this impression. A challenge is that the missionary wants to be well-received, and not fulfilling the expectations thrust upon him of being a freely-giving patron can severely damage his relationship with those he is trying to reach. (From an honor-shame perspective, he is seen as dishonorable because of his stinginess or coldness, the exact opposite of the desire of the missionary to be seen as displaying the love of Christ!) Of course, missionaries are rarely anywhere near as “rich” as people presume, so even if they wanted to give freely and frequently, they cannot do so. Also, the desire of many missionaries is not to be the object of attention, but instead to raise up the local people in a reproducible fashion to become elders and ministry leaders, to become disciples that produce disciples. Being seen as a patron, as fundamentally different from the local people, seems to short-circuit that.

The theme of patronage runs throughout the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Because time is limited, I want to give one example from the Old Testament and then just explore a few verses from the New Testament.

An example of the principles of patronage occurs in the book of Ruth. If you remember the story, Naomi had a husband and two sons. Naomi’s husband chose to move the whole family outside of Israel. This is actually pretty shocking and would have been seen as both shameful and sinful by their community. Each son married a foreign wife; the wives’ names were Ruth and Orpah. But then Naomi’s husband died and soon the two sons also died. Naomi now had no status where she was, no family, no connection to the people, and they were under no obligation to help her. So she decided to go back to Israel, and her two daughters-in-law started to come with her. Naomi told them to go back and stay with their people, and Orpah did so. But Ruth refused, promising to go with Naomi and her God. In probably the most-quoted passage from Ruth, she says:

“Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” – Ruth 1:16b-17

So Naomi agrees to take Ruth with her. The two of them arrive in Bethlehem, and the whole town is shocked to see Naomi after all this time.

What is their social status? Honor or shame? Pretty extreme in the shame category. The decision of Naomi’s husband to leave Israel in itself was an extremely shameful decision, one that probably nobody understood. And to see the calamitous result – the deaths of all three husbands, and (in their eyes), Naomi saddled with this other foreign woman, only added to her shame. The fact that her sons married foreign wives was seen as not only shameful but sinful.

Now, in Bethlehem there lived a man named Boaz, a relative of Naomi’s deceased husband. He was wealthy and prominent; that is, he was someone with the honor and social status of a patron. In accordance with the Law of Moses, Naomi and Ruth could glean leftover crops in the Israelite fields; in fact, the Law required the owners of fields to leave some crops, so the poor could do this. Ruth did this one day in Boaz’s field and met Boaz. He lived up to his role as patron by telling her not to go to any other fields, but to glean there, and though she was a foreigner, to use the water freely. What was her response? To honor him, as a proper client should!

At this, she bowed down with her face to the ground. […] “May I continue to find favor in your eyes, my lord.” – Ruth 2:10a, 13a

Boaz even fed her, giving her bread dipped in wine, and had his people pull some of the good grain and put it on the ground just for her to pick up. This generosity went on throughout the harvesting season.

Naomi was concerned about Ruth’s future, as a foreign widow, and of her own. If Ruth were to marry and have a son, Naomi’s family line and honor would be preserved, and Naomi would be provided for through her old age. We tend to think that the latter was far more important, but probably the issue of honor was most important to Naomi.

Naomi instructed Ruth to lie down before Boaz, signaling her willingness for him to marry her. She does so, and he says that he is willing to do it, but there is someone else, a closer relation who has priority over him, if he wishes to do so. Now the cultural conditions here are so foreign to us that we don’t understand what is happening and tend to reject it with disgust. In our culture we place emotions of love as the highest and, indeed, only valid reason to marry. Now Boaz may possibly have had such feelings for Ruth, but there is no indication in the passage that this is what this is about. This is about patronage.

Now Ruth has nothing to offer Boaz. She has no name, no honor status. She has nothing of value. But yet she asks, humbly. This is what a client should do. Boaz speaks graciously of her, proclaiming her honorable. He has her sleep by his feet until morning – presumably as it is not safe to go back at night – and at dawn, before she is seen, he fills her blanket full of grain and she goes home with it. Another gracious gift!

Then, publicly with key elders of the village gathered, he speaks to the relative who has the first right to marry her and asks him if he wants to buy the land that had belonged to Naomi’s husband. He says he wants to buy it, but Boaz reminds him that if he does so he must also take Ruth, as she is the widow of Naomi’s son, who was also a relative. He also has the responsibility of marrying her and having children with her to carry on the family’s inheritance.

At this, the relative balks. He doesn’t want any new children to interfere with the inheritance plans he already has for his own children. Children of a foreigner is not something he wants. Boaz then publicly proclaims that he will gladly do these things, as they are all his witnesses. The people are impressed with Boaz’s great generosity – his act of patronage – and praise him publicly, asking God to greatly bless him. And so Boaz marries Ruth, and in time they have a son. The people call this Naomi’s son, because it was counted as through her line. And this son was ultimately the father of Jesse, the father of David, King of Israel!

The Bible describes Boaz as a kinsman-redeemer; and yet, technically, the person he marries is not kin and is even a foreigner. Again, Ruth had no social status, no inheritance, nothing; and yet, she asked Boaz for his help, and he gave much to “redeem” her.

Not only does this account give us a picture of what a patron was supposed to be like, and how praise was the response of the client and of the witnesses of the patron’s acts of kindness and generosity, it also paints a vivid symbolic picture of Jesus.

You can think of Ruth as symbolic of sinners (which is everyone), of people who are in need of Jesus to redeem them. They (we) too have nothing to offer, no form of payment that could ever begin to be appropriate. They (we) too can only ask. Like Boaz, Jesus gladly pays what is needed to redeem us. Like Ruth, there is someone else who has “first rights” to us; for us, this person is Satan, for by sinning we are by rights his, and we are destined for an extremely unpleasant future with him. Like Boaz, however, Jesus pays what is required – for Jesus the price is steep, the price of His own life in exchange for ours. Jesus is the perfect patron, and we are the client. Like Ruth, our only appropriate response is praise, to speak of the incredible goodness of Christ and to speak to Him of our eternal thanks and gratitude. By praising Jesus publicly, we increase His honor!

Let’s talk a little about gifts and grace. The Greek word “charis” is often translated in your Bibles as grace. However, when modern evangelicals here the word grace, they immediately think of it as a precise theological term that means “unmerited favor.” Now, that’s a terrific definition of the theological term. But “charis” doesn’t specifically mean this. Instead, it simply means favor, or gift. The most common uses of charis in the New Testament have underlying tones of patronage. This means that it is often in the context of this “reciprocal relationship between unequals.” Note that, like in the story of Ruth and Boaz, charis must first be asked for. Also, charis does not come from a patron without reverse expectations, expectations that the client will do his role of praising the patron. Now, because God/Christ is the best and most perfect patron in the universe, He should receive far greater praise than any other human patron. In fact, He and He alone is worthy of worship.

I have a question for you: Why was the early church persecuted? You may not have heard this before, but the Roman government and writers at that time say that the reason was because the Christians were atheists. They didn’t mean that like modern atheists, they were accused of believing in no God at all. The Romans were in general quite tolerant of other religions and practices. You could even say they believed in multiculturalism. But they did have a “minimal” requirement – everyone had to worship the emperor. That is, the people were to treat the emperor as the ultimate patron. In exchange, he built their cities, provided their entertainment, provided bread – basically gave them everything they wanted! But the early Christians refused to do this – although they were appreciative of the government of Rome, of its social stability, of its provisions, etc., they could not treat the emperor as any more than a man. As a part of that honor-shame society, they believed in and practiced patronage, but their ultimate patron, the One to whom they worship, could only be one Person, and that person was not the emperor!

Jesus is our patron, and although it may seem uncomfortable to us, it is OK for the client to request things of the patron. I want to read Hebrews 4:14-16. Here it is in the NIV:

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet He did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. – Heb. 4:14-16 NIV

This translation is fine, but I want to also read it in The Message “translation”—a paraphrase— because I feel it comes closer to conveying the real meaning of parrhesia, the Greek word in verse 16 translated as “confidence.” This “translation” my shock you a little, but again, if you understand the roles of patron and client, this will make sense:

Now that we know what we have—Jesus, this great High Priest with ready access to God—let’s not let it slip through our fingers. We don’t have a priest who is out of touch with our reality. He’s been through weakness and testing, experienced it all—all but the sin. So let’s walk right up to Him and get what He is so ready to give. Take the mercy, accept the help. – Hebr. 4:14-16 The Message

Again, boldly/confidence here does not mean brashness or rudeness, or in a demanding way – instead, it means removing the masks, not hiding our true feelings or situations, but honestly, humbly, and respectfully laying before Him our real needs and concerns. As patron, He desires to really help us, but we need to really be honest about what our problems are.

In the Arabic world, the patron is often described as a shepherd, and the clients as his flock. The role of the shepherd is to feed his flock, to lead them, to guarantee their safety, to inspect and review them, to guide them, and to reassure and calm them. In response, the role of the flock is to honor him, to proclaim allegiance to him, to follow him, to hear and listen to him, to obey him, and to be thankful to him. In light of this, listen to Jesus’ own words:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. – John 10:11-15

From Richard Yaqoub: “Jesus’ death proves His loyalty to His flock. The death of Jesus is the honorable death incurred by a loyal shepherd in allegiance to His sheep. There is certainty in the loyalty of Jesus to us.“

From the point of view of patronage, conversion is the process of switching allegiance from false patrons to Jesus. Again, the relationship is reciprocal; part of our response is to do what He told us to do, and one of the things He instructed us to do was to partake of the bread and cap in remembrance of Him. This “communion” with Him is a time for those who are believers to personally thank Him for being the good shepherd, for laying down His life for us, the sheep. As Paul wrote in I Corinthians,

The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” – I Cor. 11:23b-25

This is what we will do now. As I play some music, spend some time reflecting on the Lord Jesus as our perfect patron and as the good shepherd. Spend some time in prayer to Him, thanking Him, praising Him, worshiping Him. When you are ready, go ahead and come up to get the cup and the bread. We are going to do communion a little differently today in that I ask you not to actually eat the bread and drink from the cup, until I pray – at which time we will all partake together, at the same time. I would like us to do it this way this time just to emphasize that we are one flock, one body, one community in Him. This simply feels appropriate to me given our series on honor and shame.

Lord Jesus, we do praise You for redeeming us. Like Ruth and Naomi, we were without a home, without a provider, without hope. When we came to learn who You were, and that you desired to be our patron, like Ruth we asked for You to take us under Your wing, and you graciously agreed. Like Boaz, You had to pay to redeem us, but what it cost You was Your life. We honor You for giving Your body and Your blood up for us on the cross. What You endured is unimaginable to us, but it proved that You are and will be forever loyal to us. We worship You now by taking the bread and the cup in remembrance of You. You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth. (Rev. 5:9b-10) Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise! (Rev. 5:12) Amen!