What Does Loving a Neighbor Mean When We Share a Kitchen?

Love where the next person will stand

You enter the kitchen wanting to make a simple meal. The counter is covered, the pan you need has been left dirty, and nobody seems to know who used the last of a shared ingredient. None of these things looks large enough for a sermon. Together they can make a person feel that there is no room for them in their own home. Loving a neighbor includes attending to the space that neighbor must use after us.

Romans 12 begins with God’s mercies before it describes the life those mercies call forth. Mary Hinkle Shore reads its practical demands within this received grace and the community God sustains. Tish Harrison Warren likewise places ordinary Christian formation within being loved by God. We can learn faithfulness in a kitchen without turning its cleanliness into a measure of whether God accepts us. ^{1, 2, 3}

Margaret Kim Peterson argues that feeding, clothing and sheltering people belongs to Christian service. These needs do not become unimportant because meeting them is repetitive. Sarah Morice Brubaker’s response presses a necessary question: are Christian men also being formed to do this work? Praising a beautiful home while assuming one woman must produce it misses the responsibility of the other people who live there. ^{4, 5}

Paul writes, “Let love be without dissimulation” (Romans 12:9). Nancy Lammers Gross emphasizes that the manner in which gifts are exercised matters. Frank Crouch draws attention to the warmth of the love Paul describes. Completing a task while making another person feel despised falls short of that welcome. Shared work can be carried with willing concern rather than a performance of injured superiority. ^{1, 6, 7}

David McCabe connects sincere love with conduct rather than a flattering picture of ourselves. We may enjoy thinking of ourselves as hospitable while routinely leaving others to restore the room after our guests. A reputation for generosity does not wash those dishes. Attend to the person who must deal with what our generosity leaves behind. ⁸

Find out what living here requires

Mark Holton’s study of student homes in Portsmouth shows people bringing different domestic habits into shared space, where informal authority could become contentious. What feels obvious to one resident may never have been explained to another. Before interpreting every disagreement as selfishness, say what is needed and discover what the other person expected. Our childhood household is one source of habits, not a law for everybody else. ⁹

Lucy Foulkes and colleagues heard both companionship and conflict in accounts from undergraduates across eighteen British universities. Problems included cleaning, noise, food and cupboard space; some participants avoided the kitchen. That last possibility deserves attention. A room can be available in principle while another person’s conduct makes using it unpleasant. Ask whether everyone can actually prepare food and sit down comfortably. ¹⁰

Sarah Thébaud and colleagues tested reactions to photographs labeled as belonging to a man or a woman. Their American participants did not show a simple gender difference in recognizing mess, while judgments and responsibility expectations varied with the labels and scenarios. We should question the easy assumption that women must notice and manage everything, or that men cannot learn to do so. ¹¹

Some arrangements concern access rather than taste. RNIB advises people with sight loss about consistent organization and clear surfaces. The National Autistic Society describes how noise, light and odors can affect individuals differently. Before moving familiar utensils or insisting that bright lighting and loud music make a kitchen welcoming, ask the people using it. An adjustment that seems small to us may make ordinary participation much easier for someone else. ^{12, 13}

Allan Estandarte and colleagues’ photo interviews with apartment residents in Antwerp and Brussels also draw attention to material limits. Storage, layout and work surfaces affect what can be done. A crowded counter does not always reveal indifference. Sometimes people need to agree which items can fit, where they belong, and how to leave enough usable space for the next person. ¹⁴

Share the responsibility as well as the task

In interviews with employed American parents, Allison Daminger and colleagues found that gratitude could coexist with unequal expectations about household work. Thanking somebody is good, but appreciation does not decide who will notice supplies running low or organize the next meal. If one person must remember, plan, ask and check every task, offering occasional assistance may leave much of the responsibility untouched. ¹⁵

Tom McClelland and Paulina Sliwa’s philosophical account asks how people come to notice domestic tasks. Their discussion of responsibility challenges the use of not noticing as a complete excuse. We can learn to attend. Instead of waiting indefinitely for instructions, find out what a completed task includes, take responsibility for doing it, and notice when it needs doing again. ¹⁶

Lidewij Tummers and Sherilyn MacGregor’s cohousing research shows why a communal ideal needs attention to actual care work. Something that appears simply to get done is being done by somebody. Karin Grundström and Daniela Lazoroska similarly question whether coliving arrangements give residents a real voice. A shared address or a lively social calendar cannot replace participation in the decisions and labor that sustain the home. ^{17, 18}

Kendall Vanderslice urges theological reflection on cooking to listen to people who must cook, including those working under difficult limits. That changes the conversation from admiring an attractive hobby to hearing the person preparing tonight’s meal. Ask what would make the work manageable. If someone is paid to help, respect their labor too; the task has not disappeared because another person performs it. ¹⁹

Grand Valley State University’s roommate guide offers concrete discussion topics: tasks, frequency, supplies, noise and guests, with a way to revisit the agreement. Make the work visible enough that people can understand what they are accepting. “Keep things nice” may conceal several incompatible standards. “Wash your dishes after using them and leave this section clear” gives everyone something more definite to discuss. ²⁰

The University of Ottawa’s guidance distinguishes residents’ responsibilities for dishes and belongings from housekeeping of common areas. This is a useful question wherever help is available: what remains ours to do? Agree also which food is shared and which belongs to someone else. Access to a cupboard does not itself grant permission to consume everything inside it. ²¹

Make arrangements that can bend without collapsing

The Rule of Saint Benedict gives kitchen service a place in the community’s common work, while providing help for those whose circumstances require it. Its monastic arrangement is not a command that every household copy the same system. It does offer a useful combination: participation matters, and capacity matters. Fairness need not mean making everyone perform an identical task regardless of what they can presently do. ²²

Victoria Clark’s interviews with young adults sharing homes in New Zealand show why a cleaning roster needs more than names on paper. People still have to understand its expectations and negotiate changes. A chore schedule can clarify responsibility, but it cannot speak when somebody is away or settle every disagreement about completion. Give people a way to exchange duties and discuss problems before resentment becomes the household’s main conversation. ²³

The report Cohousing: Shared Futures describes one Berkeley community’s cooking and cleaning schedules alongside meals and meetings. That example makes the practical effort behind community visible. Shared life can include both the pleasure of a meal and the less photogenic work around it. A person who regularly cooks should not silently inherit every other job because everyone enjoys the result. ²⁴

Ireena Nasiha Ibnu’s interviews with female Malay students in Britain include accounts of adjusting food to different tastes and changing cooking duties around study. One arrangement had foundered; others made room for exchanges and busy periods. Knowing another person’s preferences and allowing a reasonable change can matter as much as devising an impressive schedule. Shared cooking leaves room for learning one another. ²⁵

Fanny Blanc and Kath Scanlon’s London survey during the first pandemic lockdown found changing uses of shared homes alongside changing relationships. When work patterns alter, yesterday’s quiet corner may become somebody’s daily workspace. Revisit how the room is used instead of treating the original agreement as if it anticipated every later circumstance. ²⁶

Research by Misa Izuhara and colleagues in later life cohousing also shows people negotiating support as needs change, with limits to what neighbors can provide. Include the person affected when revising responsibilities. Someone who can no longer manage a heavy task may still have preferences, knowledge and other ways to contribute. Neither affection nor a household agreement makes every need something cohabitants can meet by themselves. ²⁷

Leave room for companionship and choice

Asking is part of this care. In Tal Eyal and colleagues’ experiment with couples, conversation improved accuracy about the particular opinions partners actually discussed. Simply imagining the other person’s perspective did not offer the same help. In a shared kitchen, ask about a preferred arrangement rather than assuming that being considerate means correctly guessing it without speaking. ²⁸

Holton’s later study in Plymouth describes active communication in common areas, including a meeting to address friction. Maria Törnqvist’s research in shared Swedish homes also observes familiarity growing through overlapping routines, conversation and shared silence. A kitchen need not host a serious meeting every evening. Ordinary greetings and small exchanges can let people become familiar beyond the moment when somebody wants a complaint answered. ^{29, 30}

Adrian Clear and colleagues observed student cooking that included spontaneous shared meals as well as a desire for flexibility. An invitation can be simple: there is enough here if you would like some. Jönsson and colleagues’ critical discussion of eating together stresses the difference choice makes. Declining tonight’s meal need not be treated as rejecting the household. Warmth leaves people room to eat quietly or arrange their own evening. ^{31, 32}

Erica Boothby and colleagues followed first year suitemates at Yale and found that, on average, they underestimated how much the others liked them during the earlier surveys. Our initial uncertainty is not always an accurate verdict on another person’s regard. A hesitant conversation can be given time without demanding instant closeness or assuming that everyone will become a close friend. ³³

Adam Mastroianni and colleagues found that laboratory conversation partners could misjudge when the other wanted to finish. Elizabeth Stokoe’s response draws attention to the collaborative cues people use in ordinary conversation. We can welcome someone without trapping them beside the stove. Notice an attempted goodbye, allow a friendly ending, and leave open the possibility of talking another day. ^{34, 35}

Correct what harms the home

Ephesians 4 calls for truthful speech and words that build others up. Richard Carlson connects these instructions with the new life believers share in Christ. A clear request about a dirty pan can serve that life. A contemptuous joke repeated whenever its owner enters the room does damage even when it contains an accurate complaint. ^{1, 36}

Philippians 2 grounds concern for others in fellowship in the Spirit and the mind of Christ. Ryan Schellenberg also warns that appeals to unity can conceal unequal power. The resident who objects to carrying all the work should not automatically be accused of disturbing Christian peace. Humility requires the more influential person to listen as well as the less influential person to speak graciously. ^{1, 37}

Matt O’Reilly’s reading of Philippians emphasizes humility embodied in examples people can follow. Whoever establishes a household standard should be willing to participate in its demands. Dan Pierce’s theology of homemaking likewise challenges the authority we give our own preferences. Before defending the proper arrangement of everything, consider whether the home is serving the actual people who must live in it. ^{38, 39}

Romans 12:18 says, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” The qualification keeps responsibility honest. We can seek peace, explain a need and change our conduct without possessing the power to make another person cooperate. Persistent intimidation or exclusion deserves to be taken seriously, with trustworthy support where needed. Calling a home Christian does not excuse such conduct. ¹

Brother Lawrence’s conversations recall his bringing kitchen work, including work he did not naturally enjoy, before God. We need not turn the sink into a test of constant serenity. Pentecostal faith gives us reason to depend on the Holy Spirit in this ordinary place: to restrain contempt, tell the truth, notice someone’s burden and accept our part of the work. When we fail, we can return to God and make the next act of care concrete. ^{1, 40}