Label Makers

Sermon for Christ the King Sunday
November 22, 2009
Scripture: John 18:33-37

Have you ever gone into work, first thing in the morning, and been met at the door with some seemingly trivial issue or problem that needs immediate attention? Or have you ever woken up on your day off to the sound of your children calling out to you to settle a monumental dispute over who gets the toy at the bottom of the cereal box? None of us like days that start like this. And when our day starts with trivial disputes and issues that supposedly need our immediate attention, we begin to expect a really bad day on our hands.

Well, this is kinda how Pilate feels in this morning’s Gospel lesson. It’s early in the morning, and he’s just reported to work as a Roman official on assignment in Judea, and he’s immediately being pestered with what looks like an insignificant conflict. The local Jews want Pilate to crucify one of their own, some man they call Jesus of Nazareth. The Jews were not much threat to the Roman empire at that time, but before Pilate even has a chance to grab his morning coffee, they are starting his day with a petty argument. I can only imagine him rolling his eyes as he arrives at the praetorium, finding this angry mob of Jews who are about to waste his morning. And immediately, the wheels begin to turn in Pilate’s mind – how can I avoid dealing with these Jews’ petty argument?

On the other hand, he realizes that if he completely ignores the issue, he might have a bit of an insurrection on his hands. If he blows off the Jews, he might do more harm than good. And to add to that, the man in question, this Jesus of Nazareth, is rumored to be some kind of big-shot leader around these parts. Some are even going so far to call him a king. And if he really does have that kind of power – if he really is a king among the Jews – then this insignificant issue may soon become a very significant threat to the Roman empire. And so Pilate realizes that he must deal with this small problem so that it doesn’t turn into a real political threat to Roman rule.

Pilate’s first question, “Are you the King of the Jews?” is his attempt to gauge the threat level of the situation. Is this a red level threat or not? Does this man standing in front of him have political clout or not? Is he able to make the Jewish nation turn against Rome or not? Simply put, Pilate is trying to determine whether this conflict is worth his time so early in the work day.

Yet, Jesus answers a question with a question. He does this ALL THE TIME in the Gospels, and boy it must’ve been irritating to his hearers:

“Are you the King of the Jews?” says Pilate.

And Jesus responds, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” Essentially, Jesus wants Pilate to admit his motives for asking a question about kingship. And Pilate, in an attempt to avoid directly answering the question, actually reveals his motives quite well when he replies, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me.”

Thus, we see that Pilate is defining kingship by the usual definition – in political terms. He’s trying to figure out if Jesus is really a political leader of the Jewish nation-state, and if so, how much authority might he have? And furthermore, how much does that political authority threaten the authority of the Roman government for whom Pilate works? Everything Pilate asks and says in this conversation is about politics. He labels Jesus as a king – a label of political status and authority. And he also labels Jesus as a Jew – a characterization, in Pilate’s mind, of political allegiance, of citizenship to a nation state, NOT the religious label it might sound like to us. But as you and I know, labeling or categorizing other people is a difficult and often confusing exercise.

In the past, I have been labeled, in good ways, bad ways, and neutral ways. I have, in my office, the results of the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, which labels me as an “INFJ” personality. Last year, I attended a mandatory seminar with the conference that determined that I was an “amiable driver” when relating with others. When I first came to town, I was categorized as a “new young pastor,” which carried expectations that, to the disappointment of some, was not met. And when I go to ecumenical gatherings, I sometimes literally wear the label “United Methodist” under my name.

But some labels I’ve been assigned are a bit trickier. When I started college, I was quickly categorized under the blanket term “liberal,” whatever that means. Yet in seminary, I was just as quickly categorized as a “conservative,” whatever that means too. I personally have never cared for these political and sometimes theological labels of conservative or liberal, primarily because it creates false assumptions about a person’s opinions and beliefs, and blinds us from getting to know the person themselves. Plus, I’ve often found that such labels depend more on the opinions of those around me than on my own thoughts and opinions.

This is why I’ve always shied away from boxing people in completely with labels or categorizing, because sometimes we have different ideas about what those labels mean. We may use labels to help us identify some characteristics, ways of relating, and personal opinions in those that we meet. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but we must be cautious with labeling other people. Because although I am a United Methodist, that is not all I am. And my understanding of United Methodist and your understanding of United Methodist may be different. Although I am an INFJ, which includes the sub-categorization of me as someone who is more “feeling” than “thinking”, this doesn’t mean that I don’t ever think, or that there aren’t times that I value thoughts over feelings. And I might act like an amiable driver in many social situations, but I’m sure there are times that I do not act like an amiable driver at all. And although I am a pastor, the word “pastor” might mean different things to different people. So labels are one way to help us define each other, but they are not the only way to define someone – especially when the meanings of labels are not always universally agreed upon.

Pilate, when using the term “king,” has one idea about what the words king and kingdom mean. However, Jesus has an entirely different view of king and kingdom. For Pilate, a king is a political ruler with total authority over a geographical region, called a kingdom. This is the worldview of king and kingdom – a political leader of a political reality. King and kingdom are purely political terms. But in this Gospel, this kingship talk is somewhat foreign to Jesus. While in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus talks about God’s kingdom a great deal, here in John’s Gospel there are only 2 brief conversations in which the words king and kingdom are mentioned. In John’s Gospel, Jesus is less concerned about political terms and realities of kingdoms and kings, and more concerned with the theological reality of truth.
Jesus Christ did not come into this world to get engaged in our earthly obsession with politics, or our need to create labels for each other. Instead, Jesus Christ came into this world to represent God’s truth and testify to that truth. And that truth is what we affirm every Sunday: that Jesus Christ is of one being with the Father, that for us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, assumed human form, was crucified, and then resurrected. We acknowledge that only by the grace of God, through these loving acts, all people are offered salvation. And all people, no matter what labels are placed on them, are freely and lovingly offered salvation through Jesus Christ.

I fear that sometimes, in our hurry to label and categorize each other with human, worldly terms, we make the same mistake as Pilate does here. Perhaps, in our need to always have labels for each other, we create a culture in which we are defined only by the labels assigned to us, rather than the person that God has created us to be. But in calling Pilate to think beyond political labels, I wonder if Jesus is calling all of us to move beyond the worldly labels we have created for each other. And I can’t help but think what might happen if we threw away the proverbial label-makers in our mind. What if we moved past the personality and relational labels: extrovert or introvert, argumentative or agreeable, driver or expressive? What if we moved past labels of status: wealthy or poor, superior or subordinate, success or failure? What if we moved beyond political labels: conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, traditionalist or reformer? What if we could finally break free of religious labels: United Methodist or Lutheran, Catholic or Protestant, Christian or Muslim, Jew or Hindu?

Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, every single person is offered the chance to belong to him – to belong to the truth. God longs for each of us to bear but one label on our hearts – one who belongs to God. What if the only label we looked for in ourselves and each other was that label? What if we simply labeled each person we meet as someone who belongs to God? Maybe, just maybe, it would be enough to make our messy world begin to look more and more like the kingdom of God where Jesus Christ is King – whatever that means. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.