Today this Sunday is called Christ the King Sunday. Christ the King – the king – yes – but what sort of king and more importantly, a king for whom? Can we for example find the glory of the king in the picture of a crown of thorns?
Methodists haven’t always been very good at dealing with this question. For example, the older methodist hymns seemed to have an Old Testament notion of king rather than the portrayal that Jesus appeared to teach. The traditional methodist hymn book often used hymns that refer to the king, yet in one study by the contemporary hymn writer Brian Wren analysing how these hymns portrayed the idea of king, Wren discovered that something like 80% of the masculine images of the king implied power over others and something like 60% references to Jesus as king were images of power with very few hymns using concepts of humility and servanthood.
Yet even if we were clear about what sort of King we should see in Jesus, we would probably be far less clear about what it means to honour such a king. Appropriately honouring leaders is not necessarily something that comes naturally.
At the end of the recent Presidential election in the United States by courtesy of CNN we witnessed scenes of delerium and joy at President Obama’s Democratic election headquarters – and equally scenes of shock depression and deep disbelief from Mitt Romney’s home crowd.
The title might now have been secured for the encumbent’s second term, but although he was clearly the winner on the night there were few signs that the devastated Republicans recognised him as the rightful title holder. The Republican dominated US stock exchange promptly plunged and to cynical onlookers there was no immediate sign that the Republican dominated Congress would be any more cooperative with the President’s legislative plans than they were last time.
Titles such as President, Prime minister, or King may tell us about intended status but what they dont tell us is to what extent the status is respected and listened to by the majority.
Knowing that Queen Elizabeth the Second is Queen of England is certainly an item of knowledge that goes far beyond the shores of England. Yet among the millions who might know her title, the vast majority are those for whom the title has no personal meaning. There is a world of difference between those who know her to be queen and those who know her to be their queen.
By analogy,when it comes to Jesus as Christ the King, the first decision those of us who want to be called his followers might ask of ourselves is whether or not by our our actions and even our thoughts we show he is our king or alternately is it that we think and act as if he is merely a memory of a king for others. It would be arrogant and inappropriate for me to answer that question for others in this Church, yet I suspect there is still value in the question, that each of us must open for our own conscience. It is an entirely private question but still reasonable to ask ourselves if there are in fact discernable differences in our thoughts and actions because we have chosen to follow the Christ we understand to be our king?
I want to suggest that simply showing up in Church on a Sunday may not settle the question. Perhaps if we return to the current Royal family the issue might become clearer.
When Prince Charles and Camilla came to New Zealand recently there were many who showed up. For the serious royal watchers the main aim seemed to be if they could actually see the couple in the flesh. Yet if the royal watchers took it a step further, perhaps they might have paused to wonder how their behaviour should be affected by the sorts of things Prince Charles is into teaching. Among other things Prince Charles is clearly interested in preserving heritage buildings, architecture, organic farming and developing National parks. I am just guessing but I suspect that if Prince Charles had a choice on one hand between meeting flag waving amateur photographers, or on the other, inspiring others to take up his causes there would be no contest.
I guess what I am trying to say is that looking at the future king is not quite the same as following the future king.
To change the illustration to one once suggested by Tom Wright and one to which I can personally relate, Shirley and I have owned two dogs. Both of them were difficult to train and shared the same failing. When we pointed to something we wished to draw to the dog’s attention, the dog would look at the hand.
Perhaps it is a trite comparison, yet I wonder if focussing on Christ and labelling that focus our worship, is to make the same mistake. We are always in danger of reacting to a popularist image of Christ rather than reacting to the essence of his teaching. Perhaps it is overstating the case yet I have noticed that some prefer singing songs drawing attention to the majesty or praise worthy nature of Christ – and give far less attention to songs calling us to follow the direction he points.
There is always a tension between the type of King that would most satisfy a population and the sort who might be drawing the people’s attention to what they need to hear. There is a story some of you may have heard of a religious tourist walking past the spectacular treasures of the Vatican museum and who then made the comment to his guide. “Well at least St Peter can no longer say ‘Silver and gold have I none’. “ “Well”, said the guide ” Perhaps by the same token he can no longer say ‘In the name of Jesus rise up and walk.’ ”
Israel did not always have a King. If we read 1 Samuel carefully we might note that the Judge and prophet Samuel managed to subdue the Philistines yet the people he served appeared to want a stronger military solution. In Samuel we should remember that although David and Solomon were later remembered by the people as representing the golden age of Israel, in I Samuel the people’s desire for a King to bring their nation to a point where other nations would respect them was portayed as disobedience against God. Nor were David and Solomon necessarily always leading in a moral or positive sense.
I would suggest that the people’s perceived need to have the sort of leader who commands respect by force continued through New Testament times and I would further suggest even continues to the present. To suggest that our nation is primarily concerned with Biblical understanding and values may not necessarily match what others might see in our attitudes and actions to our neighbours – whether they be living in a distant land – or merely living next door.
Have you ever heard the type of quiz question where you have to name a person or an object from an unfolding description?
We start with the description from contemporary Roman historians.
Son of God, born of a virgin, miracle worker, prince of peace, could raise people from the dead ….. pretty easy ………it was of course …ta rah …. no, not Jesus …at least not part of the same Roman historians’ accounts…. For them it was Caesar Augustus. And that was only some of his titles.
In John’s gospel, when Pontius Pilate is portrayed asking Jesus are you the King of the Jews? it is most unlikely that he and Jesus could possibly mean the same in using the term King. When we look at the slogan “King of the Jews” that Pilate ordered for the cross, what will the words conjure for us?
This happens to be Christ the King Sunday, and next Sunday we move to the season of Advent when we start to retell our Church story of the coming of the one we call Christ the king. Our challenge will be to remember the one who comes in humility, whose message starts with a manger rather than a pretentious jewelled crib, a king whose feasts are with fishermen, beggars and prostitutes, a king concerned with justice rather than finery and possessions, and a king who despite resurrection bears the signs of the cross…… and a king who asks for followers rather than admirers.
We need to stay with these images not just for Advent but in the days to come lest we forget the meaning of this special day of remembrance for Christ the King.