Christ The King/Shepherd etc as a church name
LatchKeyKid
Shipmate
in Purgatory
The threads on "Christ The King" and "Your Church's Name" led me to ponder on what sort of King people envisage Christ to be.
God told Samuel that Israel's desire for a King did not mean they were rejecting Samuel, but that they were rejecting God. And Judah and Israel's kings were mostly that they did evil in the sight of the Lord, with only a few being seen as good.
Jesus did not accept that he was King of the Jews, and said his Kingdom was not of this world.
The quote from the OT of Jesus as a king riding on a donkey into Jerusalem specifically excludes the phrase "triumphant is he", though triumphalism has been associated with worship of Christ.
Another Church name is Christ the Good Shepherd.
In Matthew we have Jesus saying that he no longer calls us slaves, but calls us friends. I do not know of a church called Christ The Friend - That would seem to suit Quakers, though I don't know of any Meeting Places that have names, but I haven't been around much.
So what do you envisage in the use of your preferred "Christ The XXXX" name?
God told Samuel that Israel's desire for a King did not mean they were rejecting Samuel, but that they were rejecting God. And Judah and Israel's kings were mostly that they did evil in the sight of the Lord, with only a few being seen as good.
Jesus did not accept that he was King of the Jews, and said his Kingdom was not of this world.
The quote from the OT of Jesus as a king riding on a donkey into Jerusalem specifically excludes the phrase "triumphant is he", though triumphalism has been associated with worship of Christ.
Another Church name is Christ the Good Shepherd.
In Matthew we have Jesus saying that he no longer calls us slaves, but calls us friends. I do not know of a church called Christ The Friend - That would seem to suit Quakers, though I don't know of any Meeting Places that have names, but I haven't been around much.
So what do you envisage in the use of your preferred "Christ The XXXX" name?
Comments
What do you think are the characteristics of a Servant King?
Do you think you have to make these points in your sermon because the congregation would not have that (double) image without them?
One who leads by example.
So you are reminding them of something they already know.
Pardon me, but I am sceptical about that, unless you have a specially gifted congregation.
I think this highlights one of the underlying problems with the Festival of Christ the King. In my mind, the juxtaposition of these concepts leads to the following imagined dialogue between Jesus and the leaders of his Church:
Jesus: My Kingdom is not of this world.Church: Oh yes it is.
Church: You're the King of creation, and that includes this planet and everyone on it.
Jesus: You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Church: Well, someone has to. How would the Church survive without people in authority?
Jesus: Even the Son of Man didn't come to be served, but to serve.
Church: We do lots of serving - all the time. Do you think this job is easy?
But, I've always believed that a sermon doesn't need to teach a congregation anything new, though it should lead them to renewed appreciation of the good news they have heard, a renewed commitment to discipleship and greater love of God. So, even if I it was my own congregation who I know much better, I wouldn't hesitate to refresh their memory of something I was pretty sure they already knew on my way to calling them to renew their faith.
FWIW, I increasingly hear, at least in my denomination, the last Sunday after Pentecost/in Ordinary Time referred to as “Reign of Christ” rather than “Christ the King.” Part of this, I know, has to do with avoiding the masculine “king,” but I think it also has to do with focusing on the kingdom that we pray will come rather than the idea of kingship.
Another FWIW, I do wonder sometimes whether language about and images of Christ as “king” play differently in places that don’t have kings as opposed to those who do. That is to say, I wonder whether those who live where there aren’t kings attach less political significance to the image, and see it more perhaps in something like eschatological terms. I don’t know, maybe not.
"For this is what it means to be a King: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat and when there's hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land."
Seems pertinent.
We did the same once upon a time, and had a republic (or perhaps more accurately a dictatorship ) for a few years. The Book of Common Prayer, with all its references to, and prayers for, the King was suppressed.
Maybe those with more historical knowledge than I will be able to say how the idea of Christ as monarch was expressed in religious worship during the Commonwealth (1649-1660).
In the Republic Of Korea, popular culture is full of romanticized portrayals of monarchs from the old dynasties, but the one or two times I discussed with my ESL students the possibility of restoring the monarchy(as head of a democratic system), the conversation didn't get very far, and I got the impression it was nowhere near being even a minor issue(and I rarely if ever saw it discussed in the English-language media, myself).
So extrapolating from that, I'd say it's possible for someone to have a heroic image of monarchy in one facet of their mind, while being indifferent to it in another. IOW, yeah, I could imagine people in both monarchies and republics reacting positively to "Christ the King" imagery.
So, Lewis is saying that, in times of hunger, a monarch should do the honourable thing and eat less food than his subjects?
I sincerely wonder how often that's been put into practice. Of course, there's the notorious counter-exampke of Marie Antoinette.
I think what I had in mind, which may or may not have any validity to it, is whether there’s a difference between cultures where monarchy is or isn’t a facet of everyday civic life. (Yes, I know that in many ways the British monarchy isn’t a significant facet of everyday life for lots of British people, except when it pops up in things like oaths, “His Majesty’s” This or That, or names like the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force.)
And it wasn’t so much wondering whether people in both monarchies and republics can react positively to the idea of “Christ the King.” It was more wondering whether separating language and images about a “heavenly king” and an “earthly king” is different for those who live in a culture where there’s an earthly king than for those who don’t.
I am not sure about reality, but what I am pretty sure about, having read quite a bit of C.S.Lewis' writings and thought, is that he is harking back to the medieval or earlier ideas of chivalry, at least seen through a romantic lens. It is something we have lost.
@pease .
This is also my thinking about it.
Just as in the world, many church leaders have an authoritarian approach, and their congregations passively accept it. Some church or denominational structures are set up to encourage authoritarianism.
The history of missions for First Peoples in Australia and Canada and homes for unmarried mothers reflect an authoritarian/exploitative approach, and not a serving approach. Hardly Imago Dei of the ideal or idealised Christ the King.
Amen; I think our whole modern world balks at notions of authority and kingship, but the abuse of those does not abolish the proper understanding of that, whether one’s country has a monarch or not. And He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one. And yes, a servant king, Whom we should strive to emulate in His servanthood. They’re both true.
I would say the counter example of the apparently untrue legend of Marie Antoinette – she apparently never said such a thing.
Though we certainly can try to regain it, while being mindful of the dangers of trying to put that into practical use again (due to human corruption and the dangers of that concentration of power in one person, as Lewis wrote about).
It all ended in a Waco-style shoot-out on the streets of London. The government then over-reacted by clamping down heavily on 'Dissenters' of all kinds, not just the whacky ones.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
Many of the mistakes of the Church have been when the triumphant King of Creation view is over-emphasised and the Church tries to bring that Kingdom into reality, in practice making the Kingdom of Christ look like the "kingdoms" of the world because it's the familiar kingdoms of the world that the Church often sees as being closest to the sort of power implicit in the King of all Creation imagery (and, for clarity I'm using "kingdom" here as a reference of all the ways human beings have tried to organise society with some form of power structure with an individual or group at the top - in contemporary society those at the top aren't, in most places, monarchs but often multi-billionaires who use their vast wealth to influence national politics; the structures that support them are often not political but increasingly "influencers" and media who also hold influence over national politics).
But, that sort of thinking sidelines the humble king we see in the person and ministry of Jesus. Do we imagine the Jesus in the Gospels seeking a social media platform with millions of followers to be a sign of the Kingdom? Would he consider the Church to be strong when leading figures have great wealth that they use to support politicians? Would he consider a cultural heritage of Christian observance to mean that a country is "Christian" and therefore should exclude people of other faiths migrating here, that the church should defend it's identity with people screaming messages of hate at asylum seekers or minority groups?
When I was still in the URC, before our church closed, authority to preach derived from the Church Meeting of that Congregation.
Ultimately, whether my calling from God to preach is recognised by the church I'm preaching in.
Though, I'm not sure of the relevance of where my authority to preach derives from to the question of whether I have anything to add to discussions aboard this foolish vessel, where no one has authority to preach (the guidelines for Purgatory are explicit, "no preaching!").
However, that's a tangent.
Others’ mileage will, of course, vary, but to me Lewis’s description—first into battle and last to retreat notwithstanding—is very much a description, and a romanticized one at that, of the kingdom of this world. I get more than a whiff of noblesse oblige.
I have trouble reconciling Lewis’s “and when there's hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes” with Christ the King riding a donkey into Jerusalem and wore a crown of thrones, or the Jesus who said the first shall be last, and those who would be great must humble themselves and take up their crosses.
I didn't quote Marie Antoinette as saying anything, and I know her most infamous quip is a fabrication. I was referencing her general reputation for extravagant spending during periods of economic malaise.
Though I'll also say I'm not sure it would be a good idea for a king, or any other leader, to follow Lewis' counsel and eat less than his most impoverished subject during a famine. I assume my reasoning is obvious.
Heck, it's not as if romanticism is confined to European monarchies. I've seen plenty of old American movies where angelic music swells at any mention of the Constitution or the Founding Fathers.
What's Mount Rushmore all about?
No, I don’t think we should get too 'literal' about the Lewis quote other than to draw out the points @Lamb Chopped has made, that leaders, whether monarchs, presidents or whatever else, should lead by example.
Charles II didn't set a very good example, particularly when it came to his libido, but during the Great Fire of London he and the equally libidinous Duke of York were out in the thick of it, directing sailors to create firebreaks. He arranged for tents and provisions to be made available for those whose homes were consumed by fire. As a column of refugees headed out of the blazing city towards the villages round about, he spurred his horse out ahead of them, unaccompanied to direct them to the tents and provisions to prevent them overwhelming the resources in the countryside.
Does that 'atone' for his libidinous antics, his persecution of Dissenters and hunting down of the Regicides, his wheeler-dealings with Parliament and his lavish lifestyle?
I'm sure President Zelensky isn't perfect and there's corruption within his administration but I doubt any of us would upbraid him over his 'I'm still here' video and courage in the face of Russian invasion.
All our worldly systems and forms of government are partial and flawed compared with the ultimate fulfilment of the Kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean we don't see hints and flashes of it from time to time, even in secular contexts ... or, even more miraculously, in ecclesial settings come to that.
My observation is that a sermon is an authoritative message, and that it is intended to be seen and heard as an authoritative message. The question I was asking myself is whence derives this authority. In many cases, it is derived from some other individual or committee, whose authority is in turn derived from other individuals or committees and so on, in the kind of authority structures that govern much of our lives.
Having often thought about Marshall McLuhan's phrase, "the medium is the message", during church services, my personal experience of more sermons (in more churches) than I'd wish to count is that, much of the time, the authority is the message.
To an extent, that's kind of the way things are (except for a few churches that are rather more actively aware and sensitive to the potential problems around authority). But I do think it becomes rather more of a problem when dealing with Christ the King, in which (for example) the juxtaposition of the King of Glory and foot-washing servant are integral to the intended message. As you went on to write in the paragraph quoted at the top of this post. At least part of the emphasis in a sermon comes not just from the words, but from the context in which the sermon is given. And one of the problems with trying to illustrate the idea of a king with two contrasting natures is that it runs contrary to our experiences of normality.
As I previously noted, In Time Bandits, Sean Connery plays both King Agamemnon and a firefighter (a public servant). One of the unresolved ambiguities, suggested by Connery's firefighter winking at Kevin before leaving, is whether King and firefighter are two characters or one.
My first-hand experience is that any first-hand recognition by the listeners of a preacher's calling from God comes quite a long way down the list. In practice, most people vote with their feet.
I don't know about you, but I am aware that Admins always speak with authority.
PS I'm aware that my initial question was a bit unfair.
Well, yeah. And if someone were to say "The great thing about republican government is it gets you saintly leaders like George Washington who could not tell a lie, and Honest Abe Lincoln, I wouldn't really be inclined to take that as a serious argument, either.
The Blessed Butler
Our Heavenly Scullery Maid
In the Name of God the chef, Christ the Sommelier and the Holy Bottle Washer.