Explaining Away

I'm really having to wrassle the text (Matthew 22: 1-14) this week, but not like I did last week, because this time I get the connection, but I'm wrasslin' with the reality of God as a King.  After all the nice things I said about God loving and forgiving, and even forgiving the very crucifixion of Jesus, here comes a parable about a wedding banquet, and a bunch of people who disrespect the king.  The King is anything but forgiving, he is... well... King-like.  After all, these people don't just not show up to the feast, they defy the King, they abuse and kill his servants (again like the landowner from last week).  The King has a rebellion on his hands, and he puts it down, because that's what Kings do.
I get all this, it's what the various commentaries say is going on, but I also have a bit of a twinge that I sometimes get with sympathetic bible commentaries, I think they might be trying to explain away too much.  I think they want to resolve the tension of a loving God and a righteous King a little bit too badly.  I know I do.
I want to find the mercy in all this, I want to focus on that second crop of people that are invited to the feast, isn't it great for them?  Isn't it great that a whole bunch of other people will be invited in the place of the ungrateful rebels?
But I still get this feeling that the King is somehow cheating, the hall is filled, yes, but there's not really a genuine celebration going on, and he's on edge.  He sees one guest who hasn't even bothered to put on nice clothes and he goes a little bananas, because that's disrespectful too, and quite frankly I think the King is a little tired of being disrespected, even by a common person who was only invited because the chosen guests refused or ignored the invite.
I'm quite sure there is a way to explain this whole mess with all sorts of historical context, I mean, the political angle, and understanding what Kings are all about is helpful, but I think trying to explain it away is a pretty good way to miss the point.
I'm going back and looking at the text again and again, and I keep noticing that the real rebellion is in ignoring and despising the invitation.  Throughout these parables, the easy way out is to look at the wicked tenants and the non-committal wedding guests through the lens of the relationship between the Jews and Jesus.  It's pretty obvious that the Scribes and the Pharisees are just ripe to be the bad guys in these parables, but if we simply read them as an invective against people and way of being that has been over and done with for two thousand years, then we're missing the point.
After all, what are the common excuses for people not coming to church?  Too busy, not interested, just had enough of "organized religion."  Aren't the modern responses to the living community of God's people pretty much the same as the ones of the folk in the parable?  Aren't we even more like them than even the Pharisees and the Scribes?
And when we do come are we coming properly?  Are we coming in expectation of a glorious celebration or are we slouching in our everyday attitudes, saying, "Impress me."  I don't want to read the last part of this parable as a cautionary tale against dressing like a slob at church, I don't think the metaphor is intended to encourage fancy hats and three piece suits, it is meant to indicate a willingness and participation in something glorious.
The church often takes the blame for people's disinterest.  The blame can be a matter of doctrine that is either too lax or too rigid, the blame can be worship that is too old and dull to get people excited or too slick and entertaining to really have depth, the blame can be that you're not friendly enough, or that you're too friendly and you smother people, the blame can be that you don't advertise enough or in the right way or it can be that you are overexposed and become something people despise like that Gerber Life commercial, and that's far from a complete list of faults.
But what if we look at this parable that way, I mean, what if we blame the King?  It's well known that his wedding feasts are no good, or boring, or that his food just isn't the kind that young families are looking for.  I'm becoming convinced that we, meaning the church, have been doing just that, we have been ashamed of our King and unsure of what we are.  We certainly don't have the power, nor should we try to strong arm people into attendance.
But it bears repeating that, at no point, does this dynamic indicate that the King should somehow alter his preparations or change the wedding banquet to suit the rebels.  That's probably because it wouldn't work, they would come up with another excuse.
This is a cautionary tale for the 21st century American Church: don't go changing just to change, you can adapt yourself right out of the wedding feast.  As much as God loves you and, as much as God will forgive, God will not force you to attend, but if you don't show up, you're riding into oblivion.
This is not to say that the church should not strive for relevance and try to reach out to the lost, but I have been thinking lately that many sheep aren't so much lost as they are just willfully ignoring the call of the shepherd, and that's a different thing isn't it?
I'm still wrasslin'.  Lucky it's only Tuesday.