 |
| Behold, Christ the King |
When you hear the phrase “Christ the King” it conjures
images of a stately and serene Jesus wearing a crown, maybe even holding a
scepter and orb. The images we have
derive from impressions of post-ascension Jesus—all of Jesus’ pain and
suffering of the passion and resurrection, the mystery and wonder of the
ascension are over. Now he sits, be-robed and austerely dignified, on his
stately throne and (almost literally if we were that devout and malleable)
impresses the hell out of us forever and ever, amen. Of course, this was the intent behind Pope
Pius XI’s Quas Primas in which he
established the Solemn Feast of Christ the King in 1925.
In response to increasing secularism in which God played a
decreasing role in the rule of Christian life, Pope Pius XI instituted the
Feast of Christ the King for the Sunday before All Saints Day. With the revision of the calendar in 1969,
the feast was moved to the last Sunday in Ordinary Time—the Sunday before
Advent, bringing the chronology of Christ full circle, from alpha to omega.
Pius XI felt it imperative the Christians recall that Christ Jesus by his
divinity is ruler of all creation and that humankind was ordained to live by
Christ’s rule. The pope had three major hopes and expectations for this Holy
Feast Day: first, that the Church was founded by Christ and therefore ruled by
Christ’s governance and not subject to governments and laws of nations; second,
that government rulers and leaders recall that they, as well as all laity, are
first and foremost subject to Christ’s rule before any human-made law and must
take into account Christ’s law when making human laws; and third that all
people remember that Christ reigns in our hearts and minds and bodies, and actions
and choices of our daily lives must reflect this. You can read the Quas Primus by clicking on the hyperlink
and perhaps get a better understanding of the pope’s intentions.
It seems an odd idea to connect Christ’s kingship to a
structure of governance that in these modern times has lost its power and
significance. Kingship and royalty do not garner the respect and awe that once
held sway. In fact, it is a form of rule that has developed an attitude of abhorrence.
Understand, though, that kingly rule at an individual human being’s hands is
quite another matter from Kingly rule of Christ Jesus. Perhaps it is
unfortunate that our linguistic limitations preclude us applying a better term
than “king”, yet all the definitions and connotations pertaining to the word
are apt for Christ the King: supreme ruler, chief authority of all people.[1]
(Incidentally, the root of our word king shares the same etymology as the word “kin.” Think about that!) The implication which
bears the abhorrence is that said individual is qualified in any way to have
such dominion over us. Yet, Christians
(and, frankly, all monotheistic believers) hold this truth, that God as the
creator of all does know all and does have dominion over us. Christ, being God, therefore does hold kingly
power. This is what Pope Pius XI was driving at!
Lest we still balk at the idea of Christ being “supreme
ruler,” it behooves us to recall just what it means to live under Christ’s
rule. He only gave us two rules. Shouldn’t
be that hard, right? “Love God with all your heart, soul and mind. Love your
neighbors as yourselves.” (And aren’t we lucky that he didn’t command us to
love our neighbors as God loves them? He cut us a break there!) Christ’s rule
by example is one of humility and servitude. In the hands of a wholly human
man, kingship is prone to an all-consuming power and tendency towards corruption. In the hands of the divine Jesus, kingly
power is a love so great and so humbling that the king becomes the servant even
to being the sacrificed. To be a King,
you must be willing to love your people so much that you would become one of
them, that you would bleed for them, that as a last ditch effort to save them
all you would die for them. How do you
not love a king like that? How do you not want to follow such a king?
 | ||||
| Behold, Your King (Caravaggio, c.1605) |
[1] It’s
interesting to note that several dictionaries reference “king” with a lower
case “k” as a separate entry from “King” with a capital “K”. Those definitions
for “King” with the capital always define this word as “Christ or God”. This
implies the editors recognize a tacit difference between an earthly king and
Christ the King.
No comments:
Post a Comment