Christ the King Sunday

Today is the feast of Christ the King. The feast day was instituted in 1925 in the Catholic church by Pope Pius XI, but other Christian denominations have since adopted the feast—including Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists.

In establishing the feast day, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical called Quas Primas. The text of the encyclical is available at the Vatican’s website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html. It summarizes the scriptural bases for understanding Jesus to be a king, and then it explains the characterization. Pope Pius XI quotes Cyril of Alexandria who had explained that Christ had “dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature.” The encyclical then states:

“This kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things. That this is so the above quotations from Scripture amply prove, and Christ by his own action confirms it. On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, he repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around him in admiration and would have acclaimed him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed to none other than to that of Satan and to the power of darkness. It demands of its subjects a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, and a spirit of gentleness. They must hunger and thirst after justice, and more than this, they must deny themselves and carry the cross... It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.”

Matthew 16:24-28

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

With God on Our Side (2004) (Choosing to Be an Advisor, Not a Prophet)

To me, the most fascinating part of the film came in the discussion of Reagan’s first term as president. After the election, Jerry Falwell held a press conference where he spoke with pride of a president and congress committed to helping conservative Christians enact laws and implement policies to make abortion illegal, permit “voluntary school prayer,” and restore America’s military might. In an interview for the film, Jerry Falwell later spoke of the feeling of “elation” from that election victory. Similarly, Ed Dobson (the vice president of the Moral Majority) spoke of the thrill of eating lunch at the White House. The film notes that in helping Reagan win the presidency, conservative Christians relished their proximity to power.

Early in Reagan’s first term, there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Falwell describes in the film that he was on vacation with his family when Reagan called him to tell him of his decision to nominate Sandra Day O’Connor to the Court and to ask Falwell to not raise opposition immediately. Anti-abortion activists were concerned about O’Connor’s pro choice voting record in the Arizona state senate. Nonetheless, Falwell explains in the film that he did agree to keep quiet and ultimately became a supporter of O’Connor’s nomination.

Ed Dobson then explains this decision with a “biblical paradigm.” He noted that in politics one could choose to be an advisor or a prophet. Dobson states:

If you choose to be a prophet, then you don’t have a lot of influence on the political reality, but you are always free to speak what you perceive to be the truth for the current historical moment. Or you can be an advisor with a sense of truth, a sense of value, but your objective is simply to influence the process. And I think the Moral Majority moved from a prophetic role into more of an advisor role and lost some of its ability to speak against, even the administration it was for.

To me, it seems clear that Dobson is saying the Moral Majority deliberately chose to compromise their sense of truth in order to have a seat at the table with Caesar. That is a stunning admission. In my own opinion, it was also a frightening, tragic choice.

Matthew 12:18

"Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.”


Luke 4:5-8

“The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.’ Jesus answered, ‘It is written: Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

With God on Our Side (2004) (Mainstream Media Attitudes Towards Christians)

To me, one particularly intriguing segment of With God on Our Side was the film's focus on the news media’s reaction to Jimmy Carter when he first burst onto the national political scene. Carter professed that he was a “born again” Christian and declared that the most important thing in his life was his relationship with Jesus Christ. The film shows the media’s confusion over such statements.

Ken Briggs, the Religion Editor of the New York Times, explained that Carter’s profession of faith caught most mainstream reporters off guard. They had no idea what he was even talking about. Most reporters didn’t know what an Evangelical was. Briggs mentioned that to most reporters Carter’s description of his faith appeared “back-woodsy,” Southern and thoroughly suspect.

Cal Thomas, an Evangelical TV reporter and commentator, noted that the Washington Post had written that they didn’t know much about “this sort of thing” (referring to Carter’s faith) because they didn’t know any of “these people.” Thomas was incredulous that Evangelicals were referred to as “these people” and a major newspaper was unable to find any. He asked rhetorically, “What does [this] mean? Are they from another planet? Do they not have telephones? Are they unable to read books?”

Actual news footage is shown of Harry Reasoner asking Carter what that “born again business” was all about and whether Carter’s cabinet would be filled with Baptists. There was also footage of John Chancellor on the NBC Nightly News assuring viewers that the news program had investigated the religious meaning of Carter’s born again experience. With a note of surprise, Chancellor announced they had determined it was apparently not a rare phenomenon and others had experienced it as well.

Cal Thomas noted that millions around the country guffawed at the media’s need to investigate Carter’s faith experience to determine it was not odd. He analogized it to a hypothetical situation where the media investigated African Americans to determine they were indeed human or investigated women to determine they were in fact equal to men. Thomas said, “It is amazing to hear something like this from an educated person.”

Carter’s Press Secretary, Jody Powell, commented that most reporters at that time would never have gone to church every weekend unless it was going to advance their career in some fashion or otherwise produce some tangible benefit. As a result, the media were skeptical about Carter’s faith. Powell explained that they could not imagine Carter’s faith was sincere and felt there must be a cynical, exploitative motivation to going to church.

John 3:1-8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

There was a man from the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Him at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one could perform these signs You do unless God were with him."
Jesus replied, " I assure you: Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
"But how can anyone be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked Him. "Can he enter his mother's womb a second time and be born?"
Jesus answered, " I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again. The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

With God on Our Side (2004) (School Prayer As Political Motivation)

With God on Our Side insinuates that conservative Christians began to affiliate with the Republican Party after the Supreme Court determined that institutionalized prayer in the public schools was unconstitutional. This was apparently a galvanizing event. Frankly, I’ve never understood the “school prayer” issue. Those who are most active on the issue seem to phrase it as a question of permitting children to pray in school. However, this is of course quite misleading.

Prayer is typically a personal and quiet discipline. It can take place any time and any where without others even being aware. Such prayer is certainly not forbidden in public schools or anywhere else in our country. I’m very confident that such prayer take places constantly in most if not all public schools. Indeed, when I was a kid, I myself participated in such prayers all the time. Instead, the hot-button legal and political issue technically involves whether there will be institutionalized group prayer during the school day. I’m not sure why anyone would advocate that kind of prayer in a public school. Who would lead such prayer? If you have people of different faiths in the classroom, then one of two things will happen. Either the prayer will be watered down and made vague to avoid contradiction of the theological beliefs of some in the class, or the prayer will be more specific and will offend some teachers, students and/or parents. Neither option seems desirable to me.

Further, my thinking on the whole school prayer issue was crystallized when I was a grade school teacher (prior to attending law school) and realized the main focus of teaching is classroom management (i.e., maintaining order so kids don’t get out of line such that chaos prevents learning). I’ve seen first hand that classroom management and institutionalized worship are not happy bedfellows. My first year as a teacher I taught sixth, seventh and eighth graders in a Catholic school where we had institutionalized prayers several times each day and we attended mass as a group at least once a month. Initially, I was very excited about these group worship opportunities, but I soon came to dread them. Kids will be kids, and in my experience as a teacher even “good kids” are not inclined to be spiritually devout when their peers are around. It used to offend me deeply when my middle school students were playing during prayers or mass. Instead of showing respect to God, many would use the distraction and the gap in discipline to pass notes or communicate to one another in other covert ways. It was disillusioning to me that instead of being a leader or role model of faith to these young students, I was reduced to having to hand out demerits for infractions during prayer times or mass. Pragmatically, it was also very concerning to me that such a system likely turned many kids away from God at a critical, difficult time in their lives. Because of these experiences, I vowed that if I were ever a parent, I would never send my kids to a religiously affiliated school where God was mandated. Trying to force religion unfortunately has the opposite effect of what is intended. I would not recommend it to anyone.

As a teacher in a religious school, not only did I see that forcing kids to worship in a group setting was unsuccessful, I also used to be very concerned about the kids in the school who did have a budding faith in God. I worried about the impact on them when they saw their classmates being so disrespectful. Maybe some of them began to see faith in God as un-cool or silly as a result. Peer influences mean so much to young people. I would have much rather taken the kids with a budding faith in God to a church service of mature, respectful Christ followers. That would have provided better, more supportive role models. However, that was not an option.

With regard to the legal and political “school prayer” issue, I’m further perplexed because those who seem to be most adamant about the need for institutionalized group prayer in school tend to be from faith traditions where a personal, intimate relationship with God is emphasized. Such a relationship is primarily developed by an individual’s one-on-on time with God. Realistically, it does not seem that such a personal relationship is fostered by forced, impersonal group prayer in a secular setting. Instead, people are supposed to come to their own personal decision to accept Christ into their heart or to reject him.

Moreover, in such faith traditions, spontaneous prayer is typically emphasized over rote formulaic prayer. Pragmatically, it seems to me that such formulaic prayer lends itself best to a pluralistic, secular group setting where different faith traditions are represented. Only if one writes down and tweaks the wording of a given prayer ahead of time can one be sure to avoid references or phraseology that will offend some of the people being led in prayer. In my own opinion, that type of rehearsed precision tends to defeat the purpose of prayer. I am just not sure what proponents of institutionalized group prayer in public schools would hope to achieve.






Matthew 6:5-8 (Contemporary English Version)

When you pray, don't be like those show-offs who love to stand up and pray in the meeting places and on the street corners. They do this just to look good. I can assure you that they already have their reward. When you pray, go into a room alone and close the door. Pray to your Father in private. He knows what is done in private, and he will reward you. When you pray, don't talk on and on as people do who don't know God. They think God likes to hear long prayers. Don't be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask.

With God on Our Side (2004) (History of the Conservative Christian Political Movement)

I found this documentary to be absolutely fascinating because I’ve been perplexed by the embrace of Republican politics in recent years by conservative Christians. This documentary meticulously traced the development of the affiliation of conservative Christians with the GOP through interviews with many of the most influential members of the Religious Right. But frankly, even after watching the film I’m still perplexed. Watching the film, I felt like Alice in Wonderland. Everything was mixed up, nothing made sense. The dialogue was like Jabberwocky. I just don’t understand how one can believe Jesus’s teachings lead us to support the policies of the GOP. If he were here, I certainly don’t believe Jesus would be endorsing any political party or politician; he did not advocate meddling with Caesar but was submissive to secular government. Moreover, the GOP’s positions have never seemed pro-God to me, so this particular political alignment just baffles me.

With God on Our Side traces the history of the conservative Christian political movement and seems to suggest the first spark was the Supreme Court decision disallowing institutionalized prayer in the public schools. This notion stumped me. When I was in elementary school, there was no institutional prayer, but I prayed all the time for God to help me traverse all the mundane challenges of the school day. However, in a pluralistic society, I cannot imagine why anyone would want teachers, administrators or even students to lead public school classes in group prayers. Now that I am a parent, I want my husband and me to take the lead in our kids’ spiritual formation—with the support of their Sunday school teacher and our pastor. I simply cannot fathom why the “school prayer” issue would galvanize devout Christians to rally around the Republican Party.

The film also describes Billy Graham’s implicit endorsement of Nixon as a watershed moment for the intersection of conservative Christians with GOP Party politics. However, Jerry Falwell is interviewed in the film and describes that Graham himself would later say that decision was a mistake. After viewing the rest of the film, I was confused why the rest of the prominent conservative Christians interviewed did not learn from that mistake and subsequently refrain from embracing politicians.

The film chronicles the conservative Christians’ short-lived excitement and then complete rejection of Jimmy Carter. This was also confusing to me. They seemed to be convinced of the sincerity of Carter’s beliefs, but dismissed the importance of their common faith in favor of a series of political litmus tests of questionable biblical authority. That rejection of Carter was even more confusing to me as the film describes their embraced of his opponent, Ronald Reagan, in 1980. Reagan was divorced, not even a church-goer and was married to a devotee of astrology. In essence, the conservative Christians chose a secular Hollywood actor with smooth oratory skills over a devout, born-again Christian from the South. I just don’t get it.

As With God on Our Side described the increasingly close alliance with the GOP in the 1980s, I actually began to feel bad for the conservative Christians interviewed. It seemed so clear that they had compromised their most sacred beliefs in vain, and were used by the politicians they supported. The film makes it clear that the Reagan administration wooed conservative Christians prior to elections, but after elections ignored their political agenda in favor of economic policies that were not the concern of the conservative Christians. However, instead of realizing the folly of such a close political alignment, the film shows that conservative Christians in the late 1980s and 1990s turned to new strategies to gain greater political influence and government power. Such efforts culminated in the rise of George W. Bush.

Matthew 18:1-5


At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child, whom he placed among them. And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes a humble place—becoming like this child—is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

John 6:15 (New Living Translation)

When Jesus saw that they were ready to force him to be their king, he slipped away into the hills by himself.


Luke 23:39-43 (Today’s New International Version)

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!"
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. "
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Which Jesus?: Choosing Between Love & Power by Dr. Tony Campolo

Despite its relative brevity, I found this book to be quite powerful. Dr. Tony Campolo is a scholar of sociology, and the author of many books. Which Jesus?: Choosing Between Love & Power is a tiny book that could fit in your pocket, and is only about 80 pages in length. It succinctly makes the case that Christians ought not seek power to exert influence, but should instead choose the path of sacrificial love.

Campolo begins the book by reminding us of the events surrounding Jesus’s death. It was the Jewish celebration of Passover. The local Roman authority, Pontius Pilate, asked the crowd to choose which prisoner they wanted to free during the celebration. The New Testament tells us that there were two candidates: Jesus and Barabbas. Campolo explains that in seminary he learned it was odd that the Gospel writers refer to the other candidate by his last name, Barabbas (which meant “son of Abbas”), and did not use his first name. Some have observed that this anomaly might make sense if Barabbas’s first name was Jesus, which was a common name at that time. Perhaps the Gospel writers were attempting to distinguish between two men with the name first name. This theory inspired the book’s title and provides a metaphor explored in the rest of the book.

Campolo offers readers a biographical sketch of these two men. They lived at a time when Israel was suffering under brutal oppression and tyranny by Roman conquerors. Both men were from the town of Nazareth, which was known as a hotbed for radicals. Campolo compares Barabbas to Osama bin Laden; Barabbas was essentially a terrorist trying to challenge the Roman authorities through violent means. Campolo characterizes Barabbas as a tough hothead, who must have been fairly charismatic to attract a following of fellow terrorists, the Zealots.

In turn, Campolo characterizes Jesus Barjoseph (i.e., the son of the couple Mary and Joseph) as sharing Barabbas’s “zeal for revolutionizing the nation,” but having chosen to effect change in a vastly different way. He explicitly rejected Satan’s offers of worldly power; he quoted Scripture and declared that he would save the world through sacrificial love instead of exercises of power. Campolo explains Jesus Barjoseph rejected the use of coercive power in favor of self-giving love on the cross. The book notes the wisdom of that choice; the violence of the Zealots ultimately was disastrous for the Jews. In A.D. 70, a Jewish revolution was defeated in bloody fashion by the Romans. The temple was destroyed and thousands of Jews were massacred.

After comparing and contrasting the two men in the biblical story, Campolo asks readers: “Do we want Jesus Barjoseph, who comes in love, or Jesus Barabbas, who comes in power?” He notes that by nature people seem to understand and feel secure with power. Indeed, power is the choice made by most of us. Campolo discusses the truism that whoever exercises the most power in a relationship exercises the least love, and whoever expresses the most love is exercising the least power. But he points out that the use of power rarely succeeds in the long term; it primarily instills fear, which can eventually be overcome. Campolo asserts that those in history who have accomplished the most have done so without coercive force but through nonviolent love: Jesus Barjoseph, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Campolo speaks out against modern American Christians whom he says take up the ways of Barabbas in trying to impact society with Christian values imposed through the exercise of political power. Instead, he advocates that with regard to personal moral issues, Christians ought to use loving persuasion rather than powerful coercion to get people to live according to what we believe is right. Campolo states he wants “people to freely choose what they believe and do, as long as it doesn’t threaten the property or physical well-being of others.”

Which Jesus?: Choosing Between Love & Power was published in 2002, not long after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11th. In the book, Campolo observes that it had become “dangerous to quote Jesus Barjoseph in many churches since September 11” because many Christians did not want to hear that we are supposed to love our enemies, do good to those who would harm us and return good for evil. Campolo warns that we are embracing the ways of Barabbas, and dismissing the words of Jesus Barjoseph as “unrealistic ideals.” Campolo makes a persuasive case for the transformative strength of love to bring lasting, positive change to our world.

Matthew 5:14-16, 38-48

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972)

At our church’s recent service in remembrance of St. Francis of Assisi, our pastor mentioned in passing the Franco Zeffirelli film, Brother Sun, Sister Moon, which depicted the life of Francis. My husband and I had never heard of it, so we rented it shortly thereafter. Stylistically, the film was a bit dated, but we really enjoyed the substance.

My husband and I have always been drawn to the story of St. Francis (Francesco di Bernardone) because of his emphasis on the fundamentals of Christ’s message: the unimportance of material things and loving God’s creation (human and otherwise). The film certainly focused on these aspects of Francesco’s life, but also did a good job of putting his life in historical context. Living in the United States in the twenty-first century, I don’t find particularly shocking Francesco’s decision to renounce his birthright to live a life of simplicity ministering to lepers and other marginalized human beings. But in Francesco’s day, that decision was astounding and deeply disturbing to many.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when he lived, the church had become a hierarchical institution that resembled and rivaled earthly kingdoms. As dramatized in the film, bishops and dukes engaged in power struggles and had separate armies. The wealthy enjoyed positions of privilege and the poor were neglected--even in church. In the film, one of Francesco’s closest friends and first followers was another son of privilege who returned from the Crusades embittered by the experience. Francesco and his followers essentially dropped out of traditional society. They roamed the area of Assisi singing praises to God, restored a dilapidated church, and lived off the food given to them by others. They wore rags and were filthy. Local people of influence complained that Francesco was corrupting the cream of the crop of Assisi.

The climactic moment of the film comes when Francesco and his followers walk to Rome and gain an audience with the pope. The Vatican resembled an earthly king’s ornate court. Francesco and his group arrived with dirty bare feet and tattered robes. The night before their audience, they slept on the street in front of the Vatican. When they were admitted, they looked out of place amongst all the finely dressed people in the pope’s reception hall. When Francesco quoted scripture to them, the people in the hall were aghast. They considered it blasphemy and heresy to have quoted the words of Jesus to them. The film ends after the pope throws off his elegant robes and steps off his throne to speak with admiration with Francesco and humbly kiss his filthy feet.

In a time when the church had established an earthy kingdom of great power, just repeating to the powerful the words of Jesus was shocking and even dangerous. In an odd way, it seemed reminiscent of the situation in the United States in the early twenty-first century.

Mark 10:35-37, 41-45


Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

John 13:1-5, 12-17


It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."