The Gospel of the Round Table

In 1685, George Fox wrote “The Distinction Between the Two Suppers of Christ.” In this tract, he explained that Christ knocks on the doors of our souls, and if we hear his voice, we can invite him in and have supper with him. Here, Fox alludes to Revelations 3:2 – 3:22. He goes on to say that the real last supper was not an historical event from the ancient past. Rather, the real last supper is Christ’s invitation to you and me today – to the mystical feast of love and our experience of this feast.

I love Fox’s emphasis on invitation, and his teaching that our consent is the critical factor that allows us to enter the feast of Christ’s kindness and compassion. When I think about Fox’s “feast of love,” I imagine being served on a table that is round. If Quaker tradition has an emblem, if the Gospel has an emblem, for me it is the round table.

People are generally comfortable with long, rectangular tables, which have a clear chain of command, where the sovereign sits at the head. At such a table, everyone knows their place. On some level, we all just want to know where we fit in the social arrangement.

At a round table, all sit there as peers. A round table expresses no overt social hierarchy. At such a table, everyone has a place. Everyone has something to contribute. There are no lowly outsiders at the foot of the table or monarchs at the head. I have experienced many church and meetinghouse fellowship halls and coffee hours, and I can report that conversations are freer, broader, and include more voices when round tables are employed. The structure of the table invites pluralism.

I respect what a Conservative Friend said to me regarding the Gospel of the round table: “All Friends have equal voice, but not all Friends’ voices confer equal weight.” This is fair. We need to evaluate differences in age, experience, and ability. Yet, no matter our angle on the round table, “equal voice” is still a vast improvement over what we see in our polarized society today.

Socially, at the common rectangular table, we tend to elevate members of society whom we deem to be successful, and we relegate to the foot of the table the unhoused, the poor, convicted felons, and addicts. In so doing, we contribute to polarization and fragmentation. We do the same within our own psyches. We embrace those aspects of ourselves we think to be presentable and admirable. Then we hide, suppress, deny, and avoid the aspects of ourselves that we deem “unacceptable or shameful.” The paradigm of the rectangular table divides and compartmentalizes our psyches and our society.

One time when I was working at a soup kitchen, I spotted a woman who seemed entirely dejected. When she received a hot cup of soup, tangible evidence that someone in this world cared about her, she smiled with ripple effects that entirely filled her face. Of course, solutions to homelessness and hunger are not this simple, yet spontaneous joy in a soup line is a start.

Jesus offers us a full-bodied embrace, assuring us that all the chapters of our lives are accepted at his table. The aspects of ourselves that we don’t like and that we don’t want anyone to know about are welcome at his table. Jesus convinces us that even our shadow has something to teach us, can help us become more authentic and humble.

Today, our planet’s many environmental crises are the results of people putting human interests at the head of the table and making all other creatures and eco-systems subservient. We need to commit ourselves to a different paradigm, one where we refuse to separate human interests from the great round table of existence.

Also in our human society, we can make inroads with those we categorize as “on the other side of the political fence,” people on the Alzheimer’s ward, juvenile delinquents, and addicts, to name a few. This is Christ’s high calling to a “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).

George Fox and Margaret Fell Fox did not establish the new Society of Friends by taking over the head seat of an old rectangular table. They changed the furniture. They began seeing others in the round, and they saw that when it comes to making good, balanced decisions, two or three or four diverse heads are always better than one. And a round table is always more balanced, holistic, and wise than a long rectangular one. ~~~

Amos Smith is a long-term centering prayer practitioner, writer, workshop leader, and licensed counselor. He is the author of several books, including Holistic Mysticism: The Integrated Spiritual Path of the Quakers, published in 2023. He is a member of Gathering Friends Quaker Meeting in Olympia, Washington.