Sermon preached on November 25, 2012 (@ 8.00 and 11.15 am) at St.
David’s Episcopal Church, Washington, DC
Proper 29: Daniel 7:9-10; 13-14,
Revelation 1:4-8, and John 18:33-37
Both my children tell me that I
would have made a good history teacher, I haven’t worked out yet whether that
is meant as a compliment. Now is an opportunity to try out this role, at least
for some of the sermon. Today we celebrate the feast of Christ the King, or as
it is sometimes also called, the Reign of Christ and I want to tell you some of
its history. This is not an ancient feast. It was originally instituted by Pope Pius XI in 1925 in response to the
growing nationalism and secularism of his day – Fascism and Communism were the two
big trends of the 1920s. Pope Pius wanted to remind Christians that their
primary allegiance was to their spiritual ruler in heaven, and not to some
pretty ugly earthly rulers like Mussolini. In 1969 another Pope, Paul VI, moved
it to its current date: The last Sunday in the liturgical year, before our new
year begins with the First Sunday in Advent. You won’t find this feast in our
1979 BCP but over the last 20 years most Anglican churches have adopted it as a
major feast and in the Church of England’s latest prayer book, Common Worship,
it is one of the “red letter days.”
I get the feeling however, that a lot of Episcopalians have
come to regret the decision to adopt this festival. As I said earlier some
calendars rename it – for example as the reign of Christ - to avoid the use of
the word King. There are some very good reasons for this. Some find the metaphor of Christ the King inappropriate
for churches in the United States of America. This country is a republic, you elect
your head of state and don’t have a hereditary monarch, your national identity
is even bound up in the fact that you rebelled against a king. As a UK national
and proud “subject” of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II I don’t have a problem
with a monarchy, but I can understand the problems some Americans might have. Though
just as an aside – elected leaders can be oppressive too!
Others go beyond just this particular Holy Day and are generally
reluctant to use "lord" and "king" for Christ or to talk of
“God’s kingdom.” Lord and king not only stand for something oppressive, they
are also exclusively male. So in the newer prayer books of other denominations
and in our alternative liturgies we find “God be with you” instead of “the Lord be with you,” the “word of the Lord” after the lessons and
the gospel announcement “The Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” are replaced
by “Hear what the Spirit is saying” and “The Holy Gospel of our Savior” and
instead of the “peace of the Lord” it is the “peace of Christ” that we exchange
with one another. None of these other terms are theologically or scripturally
incorrect. I agree fully with the need to watch our use of language and make
sure that it is inclusive. God is not male.
But are these the only reasons why so many people have a
problem with the words and the concept of Lord and King? I don’t think so. I
think there are two other more problematic ones.
- There is a misunderstanding of what these terms meant for Christ and mean for us as Christians and
- There is a reluctance to accept the higher authority words like ‘king’ and ‘lord’ stand for.
So how should we understand the idea of Christ the
King? Although Jesus frequently used the word kingdom – kingdom of God and
kingdom of heaven – for the new state of life he came to institute, he never
applied the word king to himself. In most gospels that word does not occur
until it is used by Pilate when he questions Jesus after his arrest. Only in
John’s Gospel is the word used a little earlier in the story of the feeding of
5000. Right after that episode we read that “when Jesus realized that they were
about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the
mountain by himself.” (John 6:15) Clearly Jesus did not want to be a king on their
terms, nor have anything to do with a reign instituted by force. Even then
the nature of his kingship was misunderstood. The crowd wanted a national
liberator, a political and earthly king. And Pontius Pilate has the same wrong
idea. Are you the King of the Jews, he asks? At that time there was no such king;
Rome had not allowed King Herod’s successors to bear that title. So what Pilate
wants to know is whether Jesus is claiming this political title in opposition
to Rome and as a national liberator.
Jesus doesn’t reply and by asking Pilate a question instead,
he demonstrates that he does not accept the authority of this earthly ruler! And
when Jesus gets round to defining and describing his kingdom we learn that it
is “not from this world.” Nor will it any way be initiated or defended by
force: “If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to
keep me from being handed over.” The followers are actually quite literally ‘armed
attendants’ – it’s the same word used for the temple police: The ones who had just
arrested Jesus the night before. So Jesus is not only making clear that his
kingdom is different, his followers are too. He neither wants, nor needs an
army. Then finally when Pilate again asks him directly: ‘So you are a king?’ We
learn one more important aspect about Jesus’ kingship: ‘You say that I am a
king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to
the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Jesus
came to witness to the truth of God’s love. Those who accept this truth are
obedient to Jesus Christ as a king, a king of truth. To sum up the message in this passage: Jesus’ kingship
does not conform to worldly standards; it is a kingdom of peace and of truth: a
very countercultural kingdom. Jesus says something similar in Mark’s Gospel
(10:42-45) in a passage we heard just a month ago:
“You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognized
as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them.
But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your
servant; whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son
of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for
many.” This king or ruler is a very strange one indeed. His rule is defined by
humility and service, and instead of using violence to obtain or maintain
power, this king, our king, is willing to sacrifice himself for his subjects.
Pope Pius made a similar point when he instituted this celebration: "'Christ,'
he says, 'has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence
nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature.'"
That brings me to my second point. The passage from Daniel
tells us, at least in the translation I prefer, that the Ancient of Days gave one like the Son of Man “dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples,
nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be
destroyed.”
But many people, including many churchgoers, would rather
not accept the absolute authority that goes with the word kingship. If
we agree with the ideas, then sure, we’ll follow them, but only then. They are options, something to be considered.
Neither God, nor Christ, is their ruler. We find this attitude all over
the political and social spectrum. Many
only accept the authority of the individual self, others might put their
country, or their party first. It is far too easy and too common to substitute other
allegiances or the pursuit of individual goals for the values Christ holds up
for us, for the truth he came into the world to testify to. But as Christians
we believe that Daniel’s vision has been realized in Jesus Christ, and that he
is the one we are called to serve as king by choice. We choose to belong to the
truth, we choose to believe and in doing so we choose to accept an absolute
higher authority, one we “swear allegiance” to at Baptism, when we become
citizens of his kingdom, and every Sunday in the Creed when we reaffirm this
choice. That’s why the image of a King, albeit one without the usual trappings,
is still a good one because Christ is not like a President we elect and can change
every four years, the choice we make is for life and beyond.
So I really want to commend today’s
Feast of Christ the King to you. I think Pope Pius’ intention to remind
Christians that their primary allegiance was to their spiritual ruler in heaven
is just as important now as in 1925. I want to appeal to you all to accept
Christ as your King, a king who stands for the truths of love, justice, mutual
service, and forgiveness and who invites us, to become citizens of his kingdom,
and to witness to and live out these same truths.
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment