|
I have something important to say, before you read further. Key divisions in the Church are fuelled by different images of God held by different Christians. Interpretations of the tradition and its scriptures, likewise, are shaped by the contending images of God. This centrality of competing God-images, or perceptions of God, was true in Jesus’ day, and it is now true in the Church that claims to follow Jesus. In a single church, on a Sunday morning, a congregation can have persons with widely different and irreconcilable images of God.
The battle over God-image led to the public execution of Jesus Christ, for he lived and taught a God-image that sought to open the religion of his day to an inclusion that threatened the power of its leaders and the “sacred” premises that had come to shape its view of holiness. The Messenger, Jesus, was killed, for the religionists could not bear the Message of the Radical Love of God.
Sadly, the Church struggles, today, to catch up with this Jesus and the Gospel of Radical Love. In this writing I describe the politics of holiness, and I propose, as the Christlike alternative, a politics of Love.
An old Jewish tradition says that when a person walks down the street, two angels prepare the way. The angels call, “Make way! Make way! Make way for the image of God!” Different faiths speak of this “Image of God” in different ways. Christians speak of the Imago Dei, or Image of the Divine. Buddhists speak of Buddha Nature. Other ways of referring to this Image of God is True Self, Divine Self, Self, and Person, in contrast to person.
Recently, a United Methodist clergyperson who works with gays and lesbians was in a restaurant with some other clergypersons. One woman (I will not call her a lady), pastor of a local congregation, was so astounded that this United Methodist pastor allowed gays and lesbians in the church and, likewise, to hold office, that she start screaming out loud about how all the gays and lesbians are going to hell and that God does not love them. Likewise, she defamed the United Methodist clergyperson. Sadly, this scene occurred in a public place, in a town with a large population of gays and lesbians.
So, what did the irate clergy communicate to any gays and lesbians, as well as to all present in that restaurant? What was she saying when she pointed out one genre of our population as unworthy to be admitted into a church to worship and, as well, unfit to hold an office in a church? What did she imply when she affirmed that God does not love some people? She said much about herself, that is what she said, but she said nothing about what a true Christian is and nothing about the God I love and worship. She, obviously, does not seem to worship the “God” that Jesus teaches us about and embodies for us.
I believe that Jesus loved all persons and drew to himself the minorities and outcasts, those assigned as “unclean” and “unfit” by those members following the codes and credentials of the politics of holiness, for he could see the Imago Dei in everyone. That is a key point, “he could see (i.e. intuit, feel, experience) the Imago Dei…”
So, what is it that keeps so many persons in religion from being able to see the Imago Dei in all other peoples? Well, ironically, it is partly their image of God, which in turns influences their image of holiness.
Today, we still have the politics of holiness, and this is largely associated with fundamentalism. However, politics of holiness is not restricted to fundamentalism. The politics of holiness is behind much of fundamentalist Christianity, and many Christians fail to see the likeness of this politics of holiness to what is driving the agenda of fundamentalist Islamic groups.
Many independent Christian communions and much mainline conservatism is still deeply affected with a pious tribalism. However, anyone, anywhere, on the religious and political spectrum is subject to comply with an externalized code of politics of holiness that exalts those who conform and excludes those who do not conform.
What distinguishes politics of holiness, or tribal piety, from true holiness? The politics of holiness always is moralistic and tends to reduce God to a moral agent created in its own image. Often this God is tied in with a particular political position in larger society, such as a particular polical party, seeking to impose its politics on the larger society. Those in tribal piety feel themselves set apart from the unclean, the outcasts, which are almost always minorities. “Those persons do not fit the norm and are unlike us; they are wrong, dangerous, evil, and going to hell.” Often these persons will cite one or two or a few scriptural texts, overlooking the over-all Scripture Story and its themes, as well as the differences on matters within the Scripture itself. For them, Scripture is to be read like a textbook and as though it dropped from heaven, being unshaped in any way by the economic and social customs of the cultures in which the writers and editors shaped the materials. Therefore, the scriptures are considered inerrant and, thus, to be held strictly regardless of available data that might indicate certain texts were shaped by societal prejudices or lack of information, data we now have in our times. Those advocating a politics of holiness adhere to an external standard of holiness, one that does not allow ambiguity, and often these persons are very unloving toward those they judge unholy, even when the unloving is not frontal, only a silent avoidance. Odd, these persons seem never to notice how unholy their own attitudes are toward the “unfit” and “unlike” persons and how their exclusionism is diametrically opposed to the spirit of Christ.
As I read the Gospel, I am impressed with the inclusion policy of Jesus, and I am impressed with how Jesus’ example challenges the prejudicial policies and tactics, as well as attitudes of being special and privilege, tainting many churches and others in our larger society. What I see is a Jesus who looked into those judged unclean by the moralist religionists and saw in each one the Beauty of God, the Image of Divineness. Ironically, and wonderfully, these persons found in Jesus a love that they had never received from the “church” of Jesus' time. Of course, the “church leaders” could not tolerate it and were instrumental in Jesus' execution on trumped up charges. But, of course, they went home rejoicing that a heterodox threat to their politics of piety had been gotten rid of, “Praise God!” But, that was not the case, thankfully, and Jesus still lives in spirit to challenge the very politics of holiness that has now grown up in his name.
No, the Jesus I follow would not stand up in a restaurant and say that any segment of our society is unloved by God. Likewise, he would welcome persons, wholly and all, to worship and serve in Love. Why? The Jesus I follow and love respected those cut-off and corded-off by the majority religionists. He was killed for that inclusive Love, and in loving all others and meeting them heart to heart, and touching them as a sign of our acceptance, means to follow Christ, now.
No, we do not have to agree on moral issues. However, to be Christlike means we see each person as a precious child of God and our brother or sister in God. We are willing to touch those the pious religionists stand apart from and judge unclean. We welcome persons into our churches and our hearts who are minorities and vilified or excluded as a rule in religion and larger society. The Image of God in us, we see to be the same Image of God in them. We cannot discriminate knowingly, for we experience that in the other that That is the same in us. We see beyond the external differences to the core sameness. We subordinate external standards to the alignment of heart with the Heart of God. We recognize that to love like Christ means we will become seen as unfit by those who claim unfit those we choose to share Christ with through the Love of Christ. And, marvellously, in this sharing of Christ, we will often find that the very person judged unfit by the politics of holiness has much of Christ to share with us and much about Christ to teach us. Yes, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religious orientation, sexual orientation, economic status, political party …—each person, by deriving from the Divine, has the core of Divinity.
Why would I write about this matter? I write about it for varied reasons. One reason is that the woman in that restaurant screaming out her defiance and hatred is the only image of a Christian that many have in our culture. Many see “Christian” to mean exclusionists. Many will not come into a Christian church, for that reason. And, we do not have to look far back to recall when in the name of God and Christ persons of dark skin were deemed unclean and, at times, killed by a politics of holiness. Those very religionists could burn a cross on Saturday evening and attend a Christian church on Sunday morning, and sing “Amazing Grace.”
I contend that the best of Christianity is inclusive, open, loving, compassionate, forgiving, teachable, gracious, graceful, generous, … I will not be silent and allow persons like the woman screaming in the restaurant to give the only image of Christ and Christian to a society with many lost and seeking meaning and hope, longing for a safe place to be welcomed, loved, touched, and nurtured through Grace.
So, what are you going to do? Whom do you decide is unclean? Or, will you get close to the Heart of God, so close that you can see the same Imago Dei in other persons that radiates inside your Heart of Hearts?
How do we get to this point of experiencing the Imago Dei in all others? We only do it through getting so close to God that we can only see others as God sees them. That is the only way. To oppose the politics of piety, we cannot do so only through intellectual argument. Indeed, the politics of holiness cannot be transformed through intellectualization, rather, exclusion can only be transformed by inclusion, and the arms that push persons away can only be countered rightly by the arms that pull persons to oneself in Love.
I conclude on a highly personal note. If those judged unclean by the moralists remain to be seen as unclean, may I be blessed by God to be seen as unclean. If they are excluded from churches, may I be excluded from churches. If they are deprived of service in the Body of God, may I be deprived of service, likewise. If I am to be judged, let it be that I am judged for loving too much. Indeed, I would rather be wrong from trying to love rightly, than right from any other motive. If I am a threat to anyone, I rejoice to be a threat due to my open arms, open heart, and open mind to all peoples, even those judged by many as unclean and unworthy of equal love from God and equal inclusion among those who follow Christ.
Questions
1. While all Christians claim to hold to the importance of Scripture, why do they arrive at widely different conclusions on both strictly religious and, also, ethical matters?
2. To which statement do you most identify? Explain.
a.I go to the Bible to find the answers to what is right and wrong?
b. I go to the Bible to seek the universal principles on living wisely?
3. To which statement do you most identify? Explain.
a. I believe God is loving, but God is just, also.
b. I believe God is loving.
4. To which statement do you most identify? Explain.
a. I would rather err on the side of exclusion and be wrong, than on the side of inclusion and be wrong.
b. I would rather err on the side of inclusion and be wrong, than on the side of exclusion and be wrong.
5. To which statement do you most identify? Explain.
a. The Bible is divinely inspired in such a way that it can contain no errors.
b. The Bible is divinely inspired but shaped by humans, also, and contains views limited by the writers and their time and place in history.
6. To which statement do you most identify? Explain.
a. Revelation stopped at the time of the conclusion of the Bible.
b. Revelation continues and is an ongoing process.
7. To which statement do you most identify? Explain.
a. Whatever the Bible says is true always, when it seems to contradict what science seems to have proven.
b. I seek to allow my understanding of right and wrong to arise, partly, out of a respect for both the Scripture and what science seems to prove.
8. What in the above article causes you any discomfort?
9. What in the above article do you find encouraging and validating?
10. Read St. John 4.1ff., the episode of Jesus meeting a woman at Jacob's well. How does this story teach Jesus' politics of love?
Prayer
Lead me, O Christ, to love all, and transform the fear in me that would fail to see another as equally my brother, my sister. May the cords of Your Love draw me so closely to you that I cannot see another outside of You. Amen.
-Brian K. Wilcox
OneLife Ministries is a pastoral outreach and nurture ministry of the First United Methodist Church, Fort Meade, FL. For Spiritual Direction, Pastoral Counseling, spiritual formation workshops, Christian meditation retreats, or more information about OneLife, write Rev. Dr. Brian K. Wilcox at briankwilcox@comcast.net.
Brian's book of mystical love poetry, An Ache for Union, can be ordered through major bookdealers.
Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors
The People of the
United Methodist Church
|
