The theology behind almost every one of our ecclesial
disputes is Christological. Simply put, church conflicts cannot be resolved
when we make Jesus into an abstract idea, rather than a living, breathing,
incarnate reality.
It is my belief that almost every disagreement within the
church arises because each of us has created a particular Jesus, one who sees
the world much like we do, and in doing so our “own personal Jesus” has become
an idea, rather than the embodied presence of God. We love our idea of
Jesus, especially because that idea always corresponds to our own way of
thinking in the first place.
Why is this a problem? Well, here are a few thoughts:
There is no room for an abstract idea of Jesus to challenge
your thinking. The real flesh and blood Jesus challenges human ideas all the
time.
There is no way for an abstract idea of Jesus to empathize
with suffering. The real flesh and blood Jesus suffers alongside people,
meeting pain head-on.
It is not possible for an abstract idea of Jesus to relate
to diverse human experiences. The real flesh and blood Jesus can talk with fishermen,
tax collectors, lepers, disciples, prostitutes, centurions, children,
grown-ups, the rich, the poor, the Jews, the Samaritans … and on and on.
In other words, when we reduce Jesus to an abstract idea, we
lose the essence of who he is. When we impoverish our Christology to the point
of abstraction, we make Jesus into no more than a weapon to wield against those
with whom we disagree. And that’s just not okay.
The dispute du jour in the United Methodist Church is
whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to be married and whether or
not gay people should be allowed to be ordained. (Yes, for you non-UMC people,
we are still debating these questions - *sigh* - What can I say?
Navel-gazing amuses us.)
The denomination is polarized over the questions, with one
pole saying “You just can’t” and one pole saying “You have to,” and I can’t
help but think that the theological gap between their positions is and
impoverished Christology. Each has created a version of Jesus that fits their
own viewpoint, and appeals to that abstract idea of Jesus in their discussions
on the issues.
So each pole cites Scripture, each pole emphasizes the
mission of the church, each pole laments becoming a “dead sect” instead of a
vital, vibrant church. People from each pole, in other words, have created faith-based
frameworks that use very similar language from which to make their case. Each
pole has created a Jesus who sees things like they do, and appeal to him as
their source of authority.
And now each pole is unable to vary from their positions,
lest they be considered unfaithful. There is no compromise for those on the
poles, because to do so would be to admit that they might be wrong, which would
mean that the Jesus they created might be wrong, which of course we could never
say – Jesus can’t be “wrong,” can he?
In the meantime, there are a lot of people in the center of
the dispute du jour, who would say “You can but you don’t have to” about
marriage and ordination of people who are gay.
In this large “center” of the church there are people who are
more ready for the real live Jesus to challenge their perspective and to change
their minds. There are people who have experienced how the real live Jesus
suffers alongside people instead of callously dismissing them. There are people
who are open to how the real live Jesus might relate to people differently in
different situations, even situations that are very different from their own.
I honestly do not know what exactly is going to happen over
the next year or so in the United Methodist Church. Will the majority of us in
the “You can but you don’t have to” center of the denomination be able to
fashion a workable compromise? If we do, will the poles then split off and
become their own thing? And then if they do that, will the hard work of the
compromise prove to be a waste of resources and energy, if they were just going
to split off anyway? There is so much speculation and guessing going on in the
denomination right now, but the truth is that nobody knows anything for sure.
What I do know for sure is that Jesus is Jesus, and the
heart of this dispute (and many others) is our inability or our unwillingness
to allow him to be so. Rather, we insist on creating a personal Lord and Savior
who sees the world exactly like we do, and then we use that version of Jesus to
attack one another.
We’re coming up to Palm Sunday, when we remember how a whole
crowd of people created their own personal Jesus, a Jesus who was going to conquer
the Romans and drive them out of Israel, a Jesus who saw the world very much as
they did. As they marched into Jerusalem with this abstract idea of Jesus, they
shouted his praises and waved victorious branches in the air.
But then, Jesus was Jesus. Jesus refused to be an abstract
idea. Jesus had no intention of conforming to human expectations. And even
though he told them several times that it was going to happen, his followers
were nevertheless stunned when he was killed.
This season, what might happen if all of us followers of
Jesus who think we know him so well would empty out our Jesus bottles, so to
speak, and allow him to do what he does? What might happen if we surrendered
our preconceived notions of Jesus, started with a clean slate, and just let
Jesus be Jesus?
