Archive for the ‘Christ the King’ Category

Christ the King?

November 22, 2025

The Reign of Christ -2025

Luke 21:33-43

Marian Free

 

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

I have to admit that I approach the Feast of Christ the King with mixed feelings. In fact, you will notice the contradiction between this sermon and my choice of hymns! I am not immune to the sense of jubilation, of victory even, as we celebrate Christ’s exaltation in glory to the right hand of God. The Feast of Christ the King is a fitting end to the Church year, the culmination of the Jesus’ story, a reminder of Christ’s triumph over the forces of evil and a recognition of his power and authority as king and judge.

 It was in part to reassert the authority of Jesus (in contrast to that of worldly powers) that Pope Leo XI introduced this Feast Day in 1925 – the last of the Feast Days to be added to the church calendar.  The then Pope was concerned about the increased secularism and nationalism that followed the First World War. His solution was to remind Catholic Christians of Jesus’ authority over all creation. He also wanted to drive home the point that while earthly governments come and go, Christ the King rules forever – one power to rule all powers.

 My ambivalence concerning this feast is the danger of it being taken to represent triumphalism and authoritarianism both of which are hinted at in another name for today’s Feast – The Solemnity of our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe. Indeed, the encyclical which announced the Feast states that: One person of the Trinity unites himself to human nature and reigns over all creation as the Incarnate Son of God. “From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognise his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures” (Quas primas, 13).

Such language causes me considerable disquiet. Empire, rule, and subjection are the language of colonialism, not of the kingdom of God that was revealed in the gospels. In fact, the language of the gospels (and the Pauline correspondence) subverts rather than adopts the language of Empire.

 As I came to today’s sermon I realised that the idea of Jesus’ kingship barely rates a mention in the gospels. There are only two occasions on which Jesus is named as King by his own people (or by the gospel writers).  The first occurs in Matthew’s account of the visit of the magi and in Luke’s gospel, Jesus is greeted as King when he enters Jerusalem. Otherwise, the question of whether or not Jesus is king occurs only in the Passion narrative in which Pilate asks Jesus if he is “the King of the Jews” and when he writes “King of the Jews” on the inscription above Jesus’ cross. Many other titles are used for Jesus, but I won’t go into them here except to mention that God addresses Jesus as “beloved Son” and Jesus most commonly refers to himself as the Son of Man.  So, the idea of Jesus as king or as a ruler of nations (let alone a ruler of his followers) does not come from the gospels except indirectly.

 The kingdom of God or heaven is a more common theme in the gospels and could imply kingship, but even this expression is fraught with difficulty and scholars cannot say exactly what it means. It seems to refer to an ideal situation in which God reigns over all, but whether it refers to a future or present kingdom, an earthly or a heavenly kingdom is unclear. A number of other terms seem to refer to what is essentially the same thing: Paradise and kingdom are used interchangeably in today’s gospel, God is in heaven and it is possible that resurrection and eternal life refer to a place where God is. In any case the meaning of all these terms seem to be fluid and inconsistent and some could refer to an earth which looks like heaven and some seem to refer specifically to heaven.

 So I ask, as did Pilate: Is Jesus the king of the Jews? His contemporaries did not treat Jesus like a king, and Jesus certainly did not behave like a king, nor did he expect to be treated in the way in which a king might expect to be treated. If fact, as I thought about today’s feast, I became unsure as to whether I thought of the earthly or even the heavenly Jesus as king.

 In Jesus’ life and teaching there is no evidence of triumphalism or of authority, no assertion of power or domination, and no attempt to draw attention to himself. In many ways Jesus seems determined to go under the radar – exercising his ministry among those least likely to elevate him, among those least able to give him a sense of power, and among those who are in no position to confer status on him. Jesus did not impose himself on anyone, he made very few demands, refused to enforce laws and, rather than lord it over others, chose to be their servant.

 Jesus’ style of leadership is the antithesis of everything that we associate with kingship.  It is a leadership based on service, self-negation and the encouragement of and the building up of others. It is never about claiming power, but always about empowering others.

 As we celebrate today, let us not lose sight of the tension that is at the heart of the gospel and of the Reign of Christ – that God, creator and ruler of the universe chose to abandon heaven for the humiliation and vulnerability of human existence – not as an all-powerful King, but as an infant, not as the leader of an army, but as a nurturer of the outsider, not as a High Priest but as someone who lived an ordinary life in submission to God. Jesus proclaimed an upside down kingdom, one governed by love not force, one which valued those who had little or nothing to offer and one in which there are no distinctions, no hierarchies and in which those who serve are greater than those who lead. 

 May we like Christ build a kingdom in which all are welcomed, all are valued and in which no one lords it over another.

What sort of king?

November 26, 2024

Christ the King – 2024

John 18:33-37

Marian Free

In the name of God who continues to surprise, confound and amaze us.  Amen.

Many years ago, I read an article in an occupational therapy journal about children in foster care. It reported that no matter how much abuse or neglect a child had suffered at the hands of a natural parent they still wanted to go home. It seemed that the idea of family, mother, father created a deep longing to belong, even if the child’s reality did not live up to expectation. Apparently, an abusive mother was better than no mother, a disparaging, derisive father was better than no father. 

Terms like mother, father, mum, dad, family come laden with meaning – often idealistic and vastly different from many people’s reality. Few parents are perfect and even if they were, their styles of parenting would differ according to their own experience, their personalities and the relationship that they have with each other – no one family is the same. Even though the definition of “family” has vastly changed over the last 50 years, still many of us have an idea of what a mother/father/family should be like[1].  

The same is true of the expression “God”. In the eighties and nineties many feminists and others chose to use the term “Godde” to make it clear that the divinity in whom they believed was not a bearded, white-haired man sitting on a throne, condemning people to the fire of hell and that “Godde’ was much bigger and broader than the narrow image that was circulating. Many of us still confront the problem that the God which many of our friends have rejected is unrecognisable to us – a human invention not a revelation of scripture ad certainly not related to our experience.

Over and again, scripture confronts a narrow, unimaginative concept of God, an image of God that is easier to manage, understand and, dare I say, control. In a phrase that I often repeat, Isaiah says: “God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and God’s ways are not our ways.” (Is 55:8).  Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians makes the same point when he  argues that the cross exposes our false understanding and overturns all our preconceptions. “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1 Cor 1: 28).

Though there might be some assumptions that we can make about God, God consistently overturns and challenges our simple-minded ideas.  Nowhere is this more obvious than with the person Jesus. On every level, Jesus failed to meet expectations and at every turn Jesus refused to be bound by the limits of the human mind. Jesus came to serve not to be served, he argued that the first would be last, and announced – not that he would lead the Israelites to victory – but that he would suffer and die.

That Jesus confounds every attempt to label him and to box him in, is particularly clear in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate. Despite the fact that Pilate is in a position to put Jesus to death, Jesus refuses to give Pilate a clear answer to Pilate’s question as to who he is. In response to Pilate’s questioning Jesus is evasive, elusive and enigmatic. 

Until the moment of Jesus’ trial, Jesus was probably unknown to Pilate and now he is brought before him by the Jews (whose traditions and laws Pilate does not understand, and over whom he has no jurisdiction). Pilate makes an attempt to discover who and what Jesus is, yet Jesus speaks in riddles and throws Pilates’ questions back to him. “What makes you think I’m a king?”

Jesus does not deny that he is a king, but he is clear that like “God” and “family” the title “king” is impregnated with meaning and expectation and that if he admits to being “king” Pilate (and the crowd) will impose their own understanding on the word – Pilate will see Jesus as a threat to Caesar and the crowd will expect him to seek power.

By prevaricating, by being evasive, by not directly answering Pilate’s question, Jesus is trying to redefine “kingship”. Yes, he is a king, but not the sort of king that people are used to – not a king who enriches himself at the expense of others, not a king who expects everyone to be subservient to him, not a king that seeks to dominate and oppress all the nations of the world. Jesus is king of an unworldly kingdom, a king whose primary purpose is to testify to the truth – the content of which is contained in John’s gospel, the purpose of which is that those who hear Jesus’ voice will attain eternal life.

In just five verses the author of the gospel has de-stabliised and undermined the traditional understanding of what it means to be king. Jesus is king, but he is king on his own terms, he will not be defined and confined by the expectations of others – whether they be his fellow Jews or the representatives of Rome.

The passage is left hanging with Pilate’s question: “What is truth?” 

There is an interesting twist to John’s account of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. Traditionally a name is attached to the cross to identify the one being crucified. Pilate orders that the sign on Jesus’ cross read (in Hebrew, Latin and Greek): “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Despite the objections of the Jews, Pilate leaves the wording as it is. Has Pilate come to see the truth? Has he grasped that Jesus is a king (albeit a very different one) or is this is Pilate’s way of justifying an execution which at heart he believes is not justified.

Either way, Jesus’ crucifixion is the ultimate act de-stablises, unsettles and even undermines all our expectations of what it means to be King of the Jews, the one sent by God, the anointed.  

Jesus’ dialogue with Pilate, is a reminder that the narrative is not within our control, that God the Trinity will always act in ways that we do not expect and will always defy our attempts to categorise and define.  In the face of Pilate’s efforts to label him Jesus infuses the expression with new meaning.  He is a king, but he is a king like no other (before or since).

May all our longings for the kingdom be tempered by the knowledge that the kingdom is not of our making and that our human intellects are inadequate to the task of truly comprehending who and what God is, what it is that God plans, and what the kingdom will finally be revealed to be.


[1] Of course, the nature of families has completely changed and with that comes a change in expectations.

A sovereign like not other

November 16, 2022

The Reign of Christ
Luke 23:33-43
Marian Free

In the name of Christ, whose reign is like nothing we might have imagined. Amen.

Two sovereigns, two very different deaths.

We have witnessed in recent times all the pomp and ceremony that is attached to royalty – at least as it is known in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. The passage of the Queen Elizabeth II’s body from Scotland to Westminster, the lying-in state, the respectful crowds, the funeral attended by dignitaries from all over the world and the procession that preceded and followed the funeral were the most amazing spectacle in the best sense of the word. It is difficult to begin to imagine the amount of organisation required for the whole affair to run seamlessly and impossible to imagine how much it all cost.

How different from the death of Jesus – a sham trial, a brutal whipping, mocking guards and jeering crowds, a humiliating procession to the cross and a disgraceful, drawn-out death. As it was the Passover, Jesus’ body was not even afforded the dignity of anointing. The only solemnity afforded this king was the removal of his body from the cross and its burial in a new tomb. A shocking scenario, that seems as far from a royal death as possible. Yet it is here, during Jesus’ trial and subsequent execution, that Jesus is identified as king, and if only in order that charges might be brought against him and the presumed threat that he poses to the church and empire might be eliminated.

The Israelites had hoped for a time in which God would send a king who would restore the splendour and might of David. Such a king would indeed be a threat to the Empire. A king of David’s stature and power would not hesitate (empowered by God) to take on the might of Caesar. Jesus, however, is not that king, which is why the religious leaders do not recognise him for who he is but see him simply as a nuisance. Jesus was born in humble circumstances to very ordinary parents, he lived the life of an itinerant preacher. His choice of followers and his behaviour were not what might be expected of someone who would lead the people of God and who would break the yoke of the oppressor. Jesus is so unlike the expected king, that few recognise that he is indeed the anointed one, the one promised by God.

To most of his contemporaries, and. especially. to the leadership of the church – the Sadducees and Pharisees, Jesus is at best an irritation and at worst a threat. Jesus directly challenges their authority, questions their interpretation of scripture, and refuses to observe purity laws and to disassociate himself from sinners. It is the fact that he bests them in argument and undermines their position that most gets under the skin of the religious leaders. Almost from the beginning of the gospel account, they have been looking for a means to discredit him and to diminish his influence on the crowds. Worse, almost from the start they (the religious leaders) have been looking for an excuse to kill him.

The religious leaders certainly do not believe Jesus to be a king , but when they bring Jesus to Pilate it suits their purpose to accuse Jesus of insurrection – of claiming to be a king when he is not. They know that Pilate will have to take their complaint seriously if they suggest. that Jesus is a threat to Rome. “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the anointed one, a king.” Pilate resists condemning Jesus, and finds no evidence against him, yet he succumbs sufficiently to the pressure from the crowds that, according to the inscription above Jesus’ cross, Pilate has Jesus crucified on the basis that he is “King of the Jews.” (Presumably, the religious leaders and the crowds who have bayed for Jesus’ death don’t see the not-so-subtle slur implied by that inscription. Pilate has taken their words and turned them against the crowd. Indeed, Pilate has given the Jews a king – a king who is degraded, powerless, beaten, and naked.)

The irony is that it is here, on the cross, that we learn what sort of king Jesus is – a king who so identified with our condition that he became one of us and one with us. A king who did not seek power and glory but who allowed himself to be crucified rather than raise an army to defeat the Empire. A king who offered forgiveness to those who so barbarously nailed him to the cross and whose compassion compelled him to promise Paradise to the thief who was crucified with him. A king, who above all placed his trust in God and not in himself.

As we enter Advent and begin to focus on the Christ who comes in glory to judge, it is important to remember that the Christ who will come in glory is the Jesus on the cross, and that one who now reigns from heaven is the Christ who still bears the scars of the nails and the mark of the spear.

A crucified king is a contradiction, one that constantly reminds us that Jesus chose our existence and that, however exalted, continues to be intimately aware of our joys and sorrows, our triumphs and failures, our hopes and our fears. A crucified king reminds us that following Jesus does not shield us from heartache, persecution and isolation. A crucified king is a paradox topples our certainties, prevents us from confining Jesus to either to the exalted one or to the humble one and keeps us open to the endless possibilities of who Jesus is.

Getting the relationship right

November 21, 2020

The Reign of Christ

Matthew 25:31-46

Marian Free

May I speak in the name of God who gives us everything that we might give God our all. Amen.

My sister used to work for Family Services. It was a traumatic experience for someone who had just left university. Every Sunday lunch she would regale us awful stories – her way of dealing with the stress. Needless to say a number of her stories have stayed with me.  One relates to a young boy who was placed in a foster home in January. Somehow his foster parents discovered that Santa had never been to his home. His mother has always said that he had been too naughty. His foster parents were so sad to hear his story that, even though Christmas was long gone, they organized the local Rotary to bring Santa to their home just for this child.

Parents use a variety of techniques to discipline or control their children  – corporal punishment, coercion, persuasion, rewards, positive reinforcement, behaviour modification and so on. A certain amount of discipline is necessary. A child who knows what the boundaries are is likely to feel more secure and a child who understand that some things and some situations are dangerous will be better able to keep out of trouble. Whether we like it or not, we are all part of the wider society and we need to understand how to get along with other people and how to respect the law and the rights and needs of others. At its best, discipline encourages a child to be their best self and to get along with others. Few of us make perfect parents, but I am sure that those of us who have had the opportunity to be parents have done our very best to raise happy, confident children.

Unfortunately, there are some for whom discipline too easily slips into control. There are parents who say such things as, “if you don’t do what you are told I won’t love you”, “if you don’t behave I’ll leave you on the street”. A child raised in such circumstances would live in a state of constant anxiety, never knowing what behaviour might lead to the threatened punishment or when their parent’s love might be withheld. Instead of feeling valued and growing into mature and happy people, they would always be insecure, always trying to please their parents in order to earn their love.

Young or old, we all respond much better if we know that we are valued and loved by our parents.

Sometimes the Bible appears to  present God as a demanding and hard to please parent, one who says! “If you don’t behave I won’t love you.”  I have known many people who have not been taught to believe that God loves them unconditionally and live in constant fear that they have done something to displease God. In reality there is no impossibly high standard that we have to reach in order to earn our entrance into heaven. Nor is God watching every detail of our lives in order to catch us out so we can be punished. Instead God is urging us on from the sideline, conscious of our frailty but willing us to be our best selves.

Today’s gospel, indeed the gospels of the last two weeks, could easily be used (indeed have been used) to support the view of a harsh and unforgiving God. If you do not have enough oil the door will be locked, if you haven’t appreciated and used God’s gifts you will be thrown into outer darkness. It seems clear if you don’t reach the bar, God won’t have a bar of you!

I’d like to put the three parables into context. All our gospels were written at least 40-50 years after Jesus’ death. By this time those who knew Jesus would have died and it is possible that the second generation of believers would also have also died. The initial enthusiasm for the faith would have waned and the believing community would no longer be able to rely on the shared excitement of the original believers to shape behaviour and to draw new converts to the faith. At such a time the church would have been looking at new ways to get members and new ways of encouraging members to hold on to the faith.

There is considerable evidence within Matthew’s gospel to suggest that the community, having left behind the first flush of enthusiasm is looking for ways to encourage people to stay and ways to draw others in. What better way to put the ‘fear of God into people than to threaten believers and non-believers alike to an eternity of punishment. Of all the gospel writers none does a better job at this than Matthew. Only Matthew, for example has the parable of the wise and foolish maidens and the sheep and the goats.

Let me make it clear. I do believe that I/we will one day have to answer to God for our lives on earth and let me tell you, that will be close enough to hell for me.

It is easy to think that God is harsh and unforgiving, but the parables of the wise and foolish maidens, the talents and the sheep and the goats may be pointing in another direction. They may be challenging us to ensure that our relationship with God is so strong and secure that we always have something in reserve, have the confidence to use our gifts and the desire to support and encourage others.

If you put your relationship with God first, everything else will fall into place.

Will the real king stand up?

November 23, 2019

The Reign of Christ – 2019

Luke 23:33-43

Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

 I imagine that even the royalists among you have been disturbed by the recent BBC interview with Prince Andrew who, in the process, revealed himself as self-centered, thoughtless and completely out of touch with the values of today’s world. This is not the first time that members of the Royal family have demonstrated that at times they are completely removed from the real world. Remember when Princess Diana died. The Queen it seems believed that as an ex-mother-in-law that it was inappropriate for her to have a part in the public outpouring of grief, but in fact, she (or her advisors) had completely misjudged public expectation and by keeping her distance, appeared as unfeeling and aloof. News media and social media as well as a growing distrust in our institutions, mean that in our times members of the Royal family can be scrutinized by all and sundry. Whereas there may have been a time when they could be protected by their position, the palace walls and by their minders, today their behavior – good and bad – is on display and open to critique.

We live in a time in which the public awareness of the damage caused by abusive sexual and other relationships has risen. The public are less inclined to turn a blind eye to the inappropriate behaviour of the rich and famous – particularly when that behaviour is exploitative or abusive. Our attitudes have changed dramatically in the last few decades and our expectations of public figures has risen. In today’s world even sporting stars are not only held to account for their behaviour off the field, but also to be a model of behaviour that their fans can emulate. Likewise the once powerful figures in the film industry have been called to account and those who once turned a blind eye to exploitative behaviour and the misuse of power are now more likely to call them to account.

Whether it is a consequence of his wealth, his position or his privilege, the BBC interview exposed Prince Andrew as having at best a lack of awareness and at worst a lack of regard for the well-being of those who do not share his social status. He may “regret his friendship with Epstein”, but his continued association with that man after he had been convicted of sex-trafficking shows a blatant disregard and a failure to grasp the suffering of people who are exploited and abused.

How different from Jesus who, as Son of God, could have made many demands on his contemporaries – rich and poor alike – but who took no advantage of the power that was his, but instead put himself at the service of others. This, despite the fact that Herod was keen to know him and I am sure that many others among the rich and powerful would have been delighted to count him among their friends. Jesus, however, chose to relinquish any privilege or influence that he could have exercised. Jesus did not live in isolation from the harsh realities of the world, but immersed himself fully in the lives of the poor and the vulnerable, the exploited and the abused. What is more rather than associate himself with the rich and powerful, of with those who took advantage of or turned a blind eye to the suffering of the weak and friendless, he confronted their heartlessness and alienated himself from those who had the power to protect him.

Jesus’ first century followers did not attach themselves to Jesus because he had power and privilege and they did not follow him because he could in some way advantage them or improve their status. He had none of the external indications of authority. He did not live in a palace. He did not have command of servants or soldiers and nor did he have wealth with which to buy allegiance from those less powerful than himself. Jesus had no obvious external authority. All that he had was himself and his confidence that he was doing God’s will. Despite this people were drawn to him – not through any use (or abuse) or power but through his wisdom, his compassion and his understanding. It was his own personal characteristics that made him a leader of people, that led them to recognize him as king.

It was not Jesus’ given authority that disturbed the Jewish and Roman leaders but his innate authority that drew the crowds to him and that therefore threatened their own hold on power and their ability to control and manipulate the crowds. This man – by all accounts a peasant from Galilee – presented a real and immediate danger to the powers and authorities. When the religious leaders failed to unseat his influence or to expose his ignorance through argument they were reduced to the use of force. If they could not discredit him in debate, they would make a public spectacle of him in the religious and civic courts and ultimately, through the degrading and painful death by crucifixion. By debasing and disarming Jesus, they would, they thought demonstrate their own power and reclaim their influence over the people.

The taunts and mockery by the soldiers, by the religious leaders and even by one of the criminals were intended to humiliate Jesus and to expose his presumption before the people: “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself” “let him save himself if he is the anointed one”! The sign over the cross completed the picture – The King of the Jews would not be hanging on the cross dying like a common criminal. By all accounts Jesus’ power has been neutralized.

Rome, assisted by Jerusalem, had done all that they could to strip Jesus of his own power and influence. Yet their attempts to shame and embarrass Jesus backfired. Their taunts, rather than diminish Jesus unwittingly revealed the truth and reinforced the power and authority that came from no external force – King – but not of this world. One of the criminals crucified with him articulates this when he says: “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus, whose kingdom is not of this world, demonstrated that true leadership is that which aligns itself with those whom one is called to lead, that lifts up and does not crush the vulnerable and which wins the loyalty and allegiance of the people, through wisdom, compassion and understanding.

 

Powerlessness is power

November 24, 2018

Christ the King – 2018

sJohn 18:33-37Marian Free

In the name of God who in Jesus demonstrates that true power and authority lie in service and not in domination. Amen. 

It is not difficult to observe that the balance of power in the world is shifting. The United States is increasingly looking inward, relinquishing at least to some extent its role as a mediator, peace-keeper and influencer on the world stage. At the same time China, through its belt-road, its aid programme in the Pacific and through the purchase of property and land beyond its borders is ensuring that its role in the world is being vastly enhanced. Elsewhere, ISIS which is suffering military defeat and the loss of territory has unleashed an ideology whose effects and violence extend far beyond its geographic reach and its direct control. For those who have grown up in a reasonably stable world, the current political situation is unsettling and disturbing. We have grown used to power being wielded by one nation and do not know what the world will look like if power is exercised by another government or nation.

Power according to Max Weber is the ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber, 1922). Sociologists point out that, “power affects far more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments. Similarly, a government’s power is not necessarily limited to control of its own citizens. A dominant nation, for instance, will often use its clout to influence or support other government or to seize control of other nation states[1].” Power is sought and secured by individuals, companies or nations who wish to demonstrate their “status”; to gain control over resources – physical, geographic or technological; to exercise control over people and the actions of people; to amass wealth or even to build their own self-esteem.

Power is usually gained by force and therefore must be maintained by force. Those who are disempowered by the actions of another person or another state rarely cede what is theirs willingly or graciously. In order to maintain their power over others the “victor” must use force and/or the threat of punishment to ensure submission and obedience.  

In the first century, the chosen method of suppression was crucifixion. Anyone who threatened or was seen to threaten the supremacy of Rome was publicly crucified in the belief that such an horrific death would deter others from challenging the conquerors.

Today’s gospel is all about power[2]– its exercise, illegitimacy and its ultimate futility. At his trial before Pilate, Jesus demonstrates most fully what he has been trying to impress upon the disciples – that power overothers is ephemeral and temporary and that it is based on a false premise – the assumption that the person exercising power is in some way superior to those enslaved to his or her rule. For Jesus true power, legitimate power, power that is lasting, is the opposite of the worldly view. Real power, Jesus preached – (and now demonstrates in his life) – lies in service. Enduring power comes not from lording it over others but from raising them up. Empowering others, giving them a sense of their own worth, draws from them loyalty and respect that cannot be bought and that certainly cannot be enforced. 

Only a person who is secure in themselves and who does not feel the need to prove anything to anyone, can put themselves last and others first, can face false accusations and not feel a need to defend themselves and can endure cruelty and abuse without losing anything of themselves. Such a person can, from their own position of strength (not power), draw out of others their strengths and their gifts and enable others to develop and grow and to reach their full potential. Those who are thereby affirmed and encouraged know themselves to be blessed and enriched. In turn they acknowledge the gift and the one who so generously bestowed it with a deep sense of gratitude, a desire to please and a loyalty that cannot be bought or enforced. 

Power that derives from service need not be enforced, because it is power that is not desired or sought or enforced but bestowed by those who understand how much they owe.

Pilate does not and cannot understand Jesus because Jesus does not conform to the world with which Pilate is familiar. Jesus does not play the games that Pilate plays – he has no need to compete, no desire to prove himself to others, no longing for recognition. In Pilate’s eyes Jesus is a conundrum. He is accused of claiming to be a king, yet he submits to the indignity of arrest and trial and makes no effort to defend himself. Pilate, who is constantly needing to assert himself and his authority is at a loss. In fact, Pilate is powerless. By refusing to be cowed and by refusing to contest the charges brought against him, Jesus deprives Pilate andhis accusers of their power over him.

Today we affirm that Jesus is king – but Jesus is a king like no other king – a king whose power comes from his empowering others, from putting himself last and others first and whose absolute trust in God ensures that he can remain true to himself in the worst of circumstances. 

Would that we all had such confidence in ourselves and such faith in God that we, like Jesus, would have no need to assert ourselves, that we would seek the well-being of others before our own and that we would have the faith to face the worst that life had to offer without complaint and without a struggle. Then, and only then, would there be balance in the world, accord between all peoples and a peace that endured.


[1]https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/power-and-authority/

[2]As becomes clear in 19:10-11

Surrender now

November 23, 2013

Christ the King 2013

Luke 23:33-43

Marian Free 

In the name of God who created us in God’s own image. Amen.

Jesus was not the first or the last king to be executed. A great many Kings (or heirs apparent) have been executed or murdered. In the Old Testament, the books 1 & 2 Kings are filled with gruesome accounts of power struggles – particularly among half-brothers. At times whole families are slaughtered in order to ensure that one person’s right to rule is not challenged. The history of the British Monarchy is no less ruthless. Civil wars have been fought by supporters of rival claimants to the throne. In 1483, Richard duke of Gloucester. who had already killed the then Queen’s brother and her eldest son from her first marriage. forcibly locked up her son Edward – the king who had inherited the throne from his father – and shortly after imprisoned the younger son as well. The young princes (aged 13 and 10) were seen from time to time, but then disappeared completely. It is presumed that they were killed so that they would not challenge their uncle’s right to the throne. (In the Art Gallery at the moment a poignant painting of the boys’ Mother bidding them farewell is hung in a prominent place near the entrance.) (The problem with power illegally gained is that is has to be protected from challengers – those who have usurped the throne are only too aware of how easily they might be unseated. All potential threats need to be disposed.)

Some British Monarchs have been publicly executed. At least two of Henry the Eighth’s wives were executed for treason. In our tradition, perhaps the most well-known monarch to have been executed was Charles the 1st who was accused of treason because of his refusal to call a Parliament. Charles was firmly convinced of the divine right of kings and sought to levy taxes without Parliament’s consent. He was tried by 68 judges (there were to have been 135) and beheaded.

What makes Jesus different from this long line of tragic kings, queens and princes is that Jesus never had nor sought power – in fact just the opposite. Jesus did not see himself as someone who was in competition with the priests, scribes and Pharisees. He certainly did not try to usurp power from the rulers of Rome. From our point of view he does not appear (in himself) to pose any real threat to either the leaders of the church or the representatives of the Roman Empire.

He has none of the trappings of royalty – no palace, no fancy clothes, no wealth, no army. Jesus by his own account has nowhere to lay his head and his followers do not appear to be men whom he could easily form into a fighting force. In fact Jesus is the antithesis of all things associated with power and control. As the Son of God, he has all kinds of resources at his command – including angels – yet he chooses not to call on them even when they could save his life. Instead of resisting, Jesus allows himself to be arrested. Instead of mounting a defense he remains silent before his accusers. Instead of calling out an army (of angels) to save him, he allows himself to be nailed to the cross.

Jesus’ approach to death is consistent with his approach to life. From the moment of his baptism, Jesus makes it clear that, though he knows he is God, he is not going to capitalize or take advantage of that knowledge. He could turn stones into bread when he is hungry, jump off the Temple and be unharmed and he could rule the world if he chose to claim power solely for himself. However, despite the knowledge that he has power to just about anything, Jesus never imposes his will or lords it over others – just the opposite. Unlike the dictators of his time (and ours) Jesus knows that imposing his will on others will not secure their confidence or their loyalty. He knows that love that is forced is not love. He knows too, that it is only by forgoing all the trappings of wealth and power, only by giving himself completely to God that God’s purpose (rather than his) will be achieved.

Jesus’ teaching likewise emphasises service over power. Over and over again he teaches his disciples that the first will be last and the last will be first or that the one who serves is greater than the one who lords it over others. By example and instruction, Jesus models the notion that humility is the quality most prized in heaven and that submission to God is more likely to lead to salvation than trying to succeed on one’s own terms.

From beginning to end, Jesus confounds everyone. His life begins in humble circumstances and ends with the shame of the cross. In popular understanding, he does not fit the image of a soldier Messiah, nor does he conform to the expectations of a King of David’s line. Jesus does not exercise his prerogative to judge. All in all, he is a very unlikely and unexpected Saviour.

Jesus’ crucifixion highlights how little he has been understood and the disdain rather than the respect that has come his way. To the very end he held fast to his purpose, which was to demonstrate that true power is demonstrated through service rather than dominance. Interestingly, it is at the end – ironically – that his true divinity is demonstrated. At the very point at which he most identifies with humanity in death, the very point at which he is most human and most vulnerable, he exercises his divine right to both judge and to forgive and in so doing to decide who may or may not enter paradise – something that only God can do.

Jesus is a king who doesn’t conform to the ways of the world. He is a contradictory and confusing king who refuses the identifiers of status wealth and power. Following this king will not lead to power and glory. Sometimes it will lead to persecution and derision. It does not require great exploits and certainly has no career structure. If we choose to follow Jesus, we will learn that we are most empowered when we empower others, that we are most truly ourselves when we are the person whom God created, that true authority comes not from ourselves but from the presence of God within us, that entry into the Kingdom of God is not something that we earn, but something that we receive when we acknowledge Jesus and no other as our King.

Ultimately, we have no power, no glory, no wisdom or strength or goodness that does not come from God. That being the case, we might as well surrender. As Jesus gave himself fully to God so we might as well give ourselves fully to Jesus and discover as Jesus did that it is only when we give everything away that we uncover the wealth, the gifts and the godliness that was already ours.

What is truth?

November 24, 2012

The Reign Of Christ – 2012

John 18:38 What is truth?

 

Marian Free

 In the name of God, Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier who leads us into all truth. Amen.

I imagine that when most of us think about truth, we think about the truth, about firm facts and figures that remain constant over time. We believe that if we look hard enough we will discover some universal consistency, some shared knowledge or beliefs that are true for all people and in all situations. I’m not a philosopher, but I have learnt over time that it is not as easy as that.

So what is truth? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us that the question of truth has been debated for thousands of years. It states that truth is not only one of the central topics of philosophy, but also the largest. In fact the article claims that a “huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth” making truth a central platform of that discipline. Within philosophy itself there are a number of ways of looking at truth. For example, one way of determining truth is to determine whether or not a statement corresponds to a fact. The statement: “James walks” can be easily verified by the observation of James walking. Another way of looking at truth is to determine whether or not a set of beliefs is coherent. A set of beliefs which says that cows are four legged, milk producing mammals with different coloured hides that sometimes have three legs is not coherent and therefore not true. Cows cannot three legs and at the same time have four legs.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is no more helpful in its definition of truth. In fact  it could be argued that it is less helpful because it relates truth to God and God is a quantity that cannot be tied down. This site uses terms like ontological truth and logical truth and speaks of truth as being in the mind of God -as if the mind of God were something we could mine for facts about the world and about existence.

Another site, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – at least in its Google tag – uses John 18:38 from today’s gospel as evidence that the question of truth has been around for at least 2,000 years. The biblical reference proves to be a distraction because on inspection the site is just as difficult for the uninitiated as the former two. I leave it to the philosophers among you to explore the matter further. The point is that truth is not so easily described and prescribed as we might sometimes like to imagine – which makes John 18:38 particularly interesting.

Depending on where I am coming from at the time, I see Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”, as either cynical or poignant – cynical, because history tells us that Pilate was a cruel and insecure ruler or poignant because seen sympathetically, it is an expression of confusion and a desire to see and therefore respond more clearly to the situation before him. His question comes on the heels of Jesus’ self description – “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.”

We too might ask Pilate’s question – what is truth? In this complex and confusing world, sometimes it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, to know when we are protecting our own self interests and when we are establishing laws that protect the safety of all.

In John’s Gospel, “αλήθεια” – “truth” is used 29 times, significantly more than it is used in any other gospel. From the first chapter in which Jesus is described as full of “grace and truth”, through chapter 8 in which Jesus says, “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” to the well known, “I am the way, the truth and the light”, truth is a consistent theme. Truth, according to the author of the gospel, relates to Jesus’ unity with God which allows him to be or to reveal what is true. Further it is the relationship between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit which enables Jesus to promise that the Holy Spirit will lead believers in to the truth. Through the Trinity, Jesus’ claims, those who believe in him will know the truth and this knowledge will set apart those who belong to him from those who do not.

Having had a brief look at the way in which the philosophers define truth, it is interesting to consider the way in which it is used by the author of John’s gospel. Here the expression is used in a very particular way. “Truth” in the fourth gospel refers to right judgement – knowing truth from falsehood, distinguishing good from evil, being able, as God is, to make right judgements. When we understand this, it becomes easier to understand Pilate’s question.

Pilate’s dilemma was just this. He has been asked to make a judgement based, it would appear, on very little evidence and despite his reputation he seems to be loathe to become involved in something that is not strictly his provenance – a question of religious law. As a way to avoid decision-making, he first of all tries to hand the decision back to those who brought Jesus to him. When that fails, he gives Jesus the responsibility to acquit or condemn himself. Perhaps, if Jesus will say that he is a King, Pilate will be relieved of making a decision because the course in front of him would be clear – he could put him to death for treason.

It is curious that even though Pilate has the authority to rule and the authority to judge, he wants to abdicate that responsibility in this instance. Even though history records that he is a vicious, uncompromising man, John depicts him as indecisive and at least a little bit concerned to do the right thing. In the end though, Pilate fails. He is unable to make the decision. The fact that he does not know the truth (ie that he cannot make right judgements) is exposed for all to see. Pilate was unable to make the distinction between right and wrong, he was not able to make the right choice between the angry crowd and the innocent man. Though he had authority over the people before him and as the person with authority was in a position to judge, in this instance at least he could not make the decision. in the final analysis, he could not make the choice to do what was right.

What is truth? Pilate’s question resonates throughout history and history records that by and large humanity is very poor at making the right judgements. In the end only God can truly distinguish between good and evil. As Christians, as those who claim to hear Jesus’ voice, we have the potential to be united with Jesus and have been promised the gift of the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth. There are no easy answers to Pilate’s question. In the end truth, right judgement belongs to God. If we seek the truth, we need to submerge our egos and deflate our arrogance. The more we confront our selfishness and self interest, the more we will be able to become one with Christ and the more easily will we be guided by the Holy Spirit. The best that we can do is to give ourselves over to God and do the best we can.