In the arena of politics, this idea of kingship is not
alien to us living as we are under a monarchy. Some praise our unique arrangement
because we have a paramount ruler within a rotational system. He is King of a
federation, voted in by the individual sovereigns from the states that have
hereditary rulers. Lest I be accused of lèse-majesté, let me
categorically state that, on the whole, the history of the monarchy here and
elsewhere leaves much to be desired. King David may have been an exception as
we heard in the first reading. He was in every sense of the word, a regent, a
man who acted for God. He was described in the Book Samuel (1 Sam 13: 14) and
quoted in the Acts (Acts 13:22) as a man after God’s own heart. But even he
stumbled in his later years when, consumed with lust, he murdered Uriah, his
general, so as to commit adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. The sins of his
royal loins were like scarlet and red as crimson.
One can safely surmise that our experience with earthly
royalty is at best patchy or spotty. There have been saintly rulers in
Christendom, both kings and queens—Edward the Confessor of England, Louis the
Pious of France, Margaret of Scotland, Elisabeth of Hungary and Elizabeth of
Portugal. But by and large, royalty is just another word for excesses, honour,
privilege and being entitled. And in many cases, corrupt and depraved.
The Gospel for Year C is profoundly interesting. Here
we are introduced to an unexpected notion of kingship—a concept that shatters
our received wisdom.
This is a King who hangs unglamorously on a Cross in
the unsavoury company of two thieves. Yet, He is King as indicated in the 2nd
Reading. For by virtue of His sonship, the Incarnate Son of God is King because
He is the very image of the Invisible God. As the Credo proclaims, begotten from
the Father from eternity, He is King by right. But, hanging repulsively on the
Cross, He is also King by virtue of our redemption. If according to our profession
of faith, the Credo, He is King by right, God from God, light from light, true
God from true God, then in the Gospel, stretched on the Cross, He is King by
conquest. By His wounds we have been healed. By His death, the gates of heaven
are thrown open for the children of Adam and Eve to enter. Either way, on the throne
or on the Cross, He is our King.
How should Christ be King? Is He supposed to be a King
in a spiritual sense only? We have established that by right, yes, but by
conquest, no. Hence, He must be King in every sense of the words, spiritual and
temporal for nothing in life is outside the purview of His rule.
Our major challenge is we have accustomed to living compartmentalised
lives—a bit schizophrenic if you like. Science has done a great job at
excluding religion from the public realm. Religion as a public expression has
been reduced to a private encounter. So, on the one hand, it is easy to imagine
the reign of Christ using the terminology of spirituality. As a spiritual King,
He established on earth the Church and through a hierarchical system, He rules
as head of this mystical Body. On the other hand, both the state and the market
are domains where religion, since it is a private matter, should not interfere.
We witness this in Catholic politicians, especially in the USA, who are proud
to publicly declare their religious affiliation while at the same time are
quick to insist that their religion is nothing more than a private matter.
However, the word Christendom connotes the idea that
Christ’s reign is much more comprehensive and therefore inclusive rather than being
restricted to the spiritual realm. The relationship between Church and State
cannot be mutually exclusive where the Church is confined to serve our
spiritual end whereas the state and the market have a role devoted to the
temporal affairs. Supposedly, the Church leads us to heaven whilst the state and
market provide for the material well-being of the people.
The state and the market do not exist solely to fulfil
the material needs of the people but must always have as their goal to provide
space for the practice of virtues so that its people can make their way to
heaven.
The last King to die in Britain on a battlefield was
the Scottish James the IV, from the House of Stuart, who was killed in 1513. In
those days, it was an occupational hazard for Kings because they led their army
to war and were often the first to fall. This illustration gives us an idea
that to rule is to be at the service of the people. The master is first and
foremost a servant. And hence, whatever system we can devise, it must be our
servant rather than our master because it serves to assist us in our pilgrim
journey to heaven. Christ, our Lord and Saviour, stretched on the Cross, our
King, ruled through His service, giving up His life so that we might gain
eternity.
We all know that Christendom no longer exist and
whatever vestiges of it, many of the Christian nations are doing their best to
eradicate their Christian past. In some Christian countries, the civil
authority is opposed to religion especially to Christianity, the very
foundation of its civilisation. Hence, where Christ cannot be King, it is left
to His soldiers. We are called Church Militant for a good reason. We have a
task at hand which, is to make Christ known, if not through our words, then
through our actions. Let the world know that Christ is King through each one of
us.
As the preface rightly reminds us, “…as eternal
Priest and King of all creation, He offered Himself on the altar of the Cross,
as a spotless sacrifice to bring man peace, so that He might accomplish the
mysteries of human redemption, and making all created things subject to His
rule, He might present to the immensity of His Father’s majesty, an eternal and
universal Kingdom, a Kingdom of truth and life, a Kingdom of holiness and
grace, a Kingdom of justice, love and peace”.
It does not matter whichever systems we are inserted into;
the task remains the same—that Christ be known and love. Hence, let us all be
the soldiers Christ our King can be proud of. We have a heavy responsibility,
and may the Lord bless us all.
[1] When a state, under the guise of providing
relief, removes a child at the age of 3, from the care of its principal
providers (parents), that is a good example of a nanny system that cannibalises
its young. The child will be indoctrinated with state or rather the most
current philosophy, thus perpetuating the state’s survival.
