Who Needs a King?

The scriptures referred to are Daniel 7:9-10,13-14; Psalm 93; Revelation 1:4b-8 and John 18:33-37.

Last week we traced the development of the concept and office of king. However, the way ancient Israel got a king was a bit different. As a federation of tribes who could trace their descent from a common ancestor, the Israelites had no king. The tribes were allotted territories in the promised land and each handled its own business through tribal structures. But they were periodically attacked by the Philistines, a group of seafaring folks who came from Cyprus and Crete. They settled on the coastlands and continually pushed in towards the hill country which the Israelites controlled. They were pushed back by a series of charismatic leaders who would temporarily unite the tribes of Israel militarily. We call these inspired leaders “judges,” from the Hebrew word for those who dispense justice. But since the judges would only arise when things went bad for the Israelites, there was a feeling that the disunity that otherwise prevailed led to a lack of morale and morals. As it says in the book of Judges, “In those days Israel had no king. Each man did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

So the people went to Samuel, the current judge. He was getting old and his sons were corrupt and the people were not looking forward to them succeeding him. They asked Samuel to “Give us a king to lead us like all the other nations have.” This would give them a strong and permanent military leader with a standing army. But Samuel warned them that this would be expensive. There would be taxes to support him and his family and his administrators, as well as the army. Their young men would be pressed into military service and their young women would be utilized as cooks and staff for the royal household. The king would get the best land, a tenth of their crops, and as many wives as he wished. Nevertheless, the people wanted a king. And though this meant a rejection of God as their king, the Lord told Samuel to anoint a human one. (1 Samuel 8)

As I said last week, the Bible is quite aware of the problems of kingship. You give one human being that much power and he will abuse it. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our own form of government was a reaction against the abuses our founding fathers saw in the British monarchy. And yet there was a popular movement to make George Washington king! In general, it seems that people are only opposed to a strong leader when he is one of their political enemies. They want their own leader to be more powerful than that of the opposition.

So, in the light of the well-documented abuses of kings, should we even use the term “king” in regards to Jesus?

A lot of people think that not only the title of “king” but the whole concept of Jesus ruling over us is an outmoded way of thinking. They would rather see Jesus as a guide or an adviser. They don't like the idea of him being able to veto any of our ideas or desires. In his film Dogma Kevin Smith has a bishop introduce a replacement for the traditional representation of crucified Christ, which he calls a “bummer.” Instead, he unveils the “Buddy Christ.” a smiling Jesus, winking and giving a thumbs up to all. This is a satirical jab by Smith, a Catholic, at how America already views Jesus, not as Lord but as supportive “homie.” The “Buddy Christ” would never presume to tell you what to do or not to do. He's got your back, bro, no matter what you do.

And that's the problem. Studies have shown that self-identified Christians do not have lifestyles that are appreciably different from non-religious citizens of the US. Their divorce rate is the same. A Gallup poll found that white Evangelicals are disproportionately racist in their views of blacks. A Pew Research Center survey shows that a majority of white Evangelical and nonevangelical Protestants and Catholics see the influx of migrants as a crisis rather than a major problem. 46% of Christians overall think that poverty is due to a lack of effort rather than difficult circumstances. A host of outspoken Christian politicians have been exposed as adulterers. There have been scandals involving Christian clergy. In short, like the book of Judges says, by not seeing Jesus as king, everyone is doing whatever they consider to be right for them.

Obviously these are people who only hear the “Jesus loves you” part of the gospel and not the “repent” part. (Mark 1:14-15) They cheer when Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery that he doesn't condemn her but tune out before he tells her to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11) They don't let Jesus' commands to be godly, to be faithful and to love one's enemy veto what they want to do. (Matthew 5:44, 48; Luke 16:10) Rather they let their own inclinations and desires veto Jesus' clear commands.

Research by the Barna polling organization shows that the average American agrees with the Hindu leader Gandhi when he said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

When his disciples reported that they discouraged a man from casting out demons in Jesus' name because he wasn't part of their group, Jesus rebuked them. “He who is not against you is for you,” he said. (Mark 9:38-40) Yet churches are quick to condemn Christians who disagree with them on non-essential issues.

Jesus condemned hypocrisy. But as we have seen, a lot of high profile Christians have been doing the very things they condemn. And supporting others who violate Christian principles rather than properly correcting them. (Galatians 6:1)

Despite living under the thumb of an oppressive occupying pagan power, Jesus refused to get drawn into discussions of certain political issues. He said there were things that bear Caesar's image and belonged to Caesar and things that bear God's image—ie, people—and which belong to God. (Luke 20:21-25) He said his kingdom did not come from this world. (John 18:36) He refused worldly power when it was offered to him as a temptation. (Matthew 4:8-10) Yet the church has frequently flirted with taking on political power and, like a moth attracted to a flame, has suffered the same tragic results.

Jesus was executed unjustly. Yet the majority of white and Hispanic Protestants support the death penalty. Catholics and black Protestants are evenly split while younger Christians are less supportive of the death penalty. And this is despite evidence that some innocent people do get condemned and sent to death row. This is an area where an uncorrected mistake is always a fatal one. At least in this area, the Roman Catholic church's official position is consistent, saying that being pro-life means opposing executions as well as abortions.

These contradictions between the way our Lord spoke and the way we Christians act is apparent to the world, if not always to us. It has gotten to the point where some people, wishing to disassociate from a category that includes both Robert Jeffress and Joel Olsteen, don't call themselves Christians but Christ-followers. That doesn't seem to be catching on but I think those who coined the term are onto something. The label “Christian” has become diluted. It can mean as little as “I like some of the things Jesus stands for the way I like some of the songs in Les Miz.” Ironically, it no longer means “I take everything Jesus said as gospel.” It doesn't even mean “I seriously consider what Jesus says on issues first so I might even go against my personal opinions and desires if they are in conflict with Jesus' explicit commands.” Today the word “Christian” basically means, not “Jesus is my Lord,” but “Jesus is my mascot.” To some, Jesus is a symbol, not a savior.

When I identify myself as a nurse, I see a more favorable reaction than when I identify myself as clergy. People know what a nurse stands for—healing and caring. People aren't always sure what a priest stands for. And it's the same when you identify yourself as a Christian. Often they think it's the same as saying you belong to a specific political party. Though neither party is 100% in sync with God's point of view.

This is not to say that following Jesus may not lead you to take positions on issues that people see as political. The Bible literally mentions our duty to help the poor, the oppressed, the immigrant, the sick, the disabled and the imprisoned over 800 times. It speaks of God as being interested in promoting justice, peace, and mercy. It condemns greed, deceit, arrogance, rage, envy, violence, being divisive and harmful speech. If those were the issues we voted on, how would we rate as a Christian nation?

Part of the problem is that we have so emphasized being saved by grace through faith alone that we have forgotten that being saved isn't just declaring you're on God's team rather than the devil's. It's about being transformed from a person with a fractured relationship with God and everything and everyone he has created to a person with a restored and healing relationship with God and everything and everyone he created. It's not so much about being on a different side; it's about being a different person, a person who is becoming more Christlike. Jesus is the incarnation of the same God who, in the words of Psalm 146, “upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free. The Lord gives sight to the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down. The Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow...” (Psalm 146:7-9) If those are the priorities of our God and King, then they are our priorities as well.

We need a king because we need someone whom we must obey in such matters, not someone whose opinion we'll take under advisement. You can't say to a king, “Well, I'll obey you when what you say is in agreement with my opinion on the matter.” That's not obedience but disloyalty. You can't say to God, “I'll do the spiritual stuff: praying, worshipping, etc—the stuff that makes me feel good—but not the harder 'love your neighbor' stuff or the really challenging 'love your enemy' stuff.” That's not following Jesus. It's following your own desires. You can't do that with someone who is your Lord and King. What you can do is figure out how best to obey him in each circumstance.

But we still have questions to answer about kingship. Like this one: Given what we've said about the problems of an absolute monarch, who demands obedience, why should we choose Jesus as our king? Think and pray about that this week and we'll look at that next Sunday.

First preached on November 29, 2009. It has been revised and updated.