Renewing the City of GodPart I: Who's In Charge?

Canada, where I live, is a constitutional monarchy; while the Prime Minister is the head of government, Queen Elizabeth II remains the head of state.  There are plenty of people who don't like that, but wishful thinking otherwise does not erase the fact that our government consists of the Queen-in-Council, Queen-in-Parliament, and Queen-on-the-Bench serving as the executive, parliamentary, and judicial powers, respectively.  The proper title for the opposition party in the Parliament is, in fact, "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition."  And her likeness on our coins and bills are no mere ornaments.

Though Her Majesty has very little say on what goes on (and very much, in fact, goes on against her wishes) does not diminish one bit the fact that she was and is the Head of State.

The rank and file in the Body of Christ, I think, often find themselves in a position similar to those Canadian "republicans" (or worse) who wish to replace our constitutional monarchy with something else.  This wishful thinking, more to the point, arises from an ignorance about one very particular thing:  The Lordship of Jesus.

As the hymn All Saints of Wales has it,

Lord, Who in Thy perfect wisdom / times and seasons dost arrange, / Working out Thy changeless purpose / in a world of ceaseless change!

exemplifies well God's purpose in allowing the Israelites to have a king to govern them "like all the nations" (1 Sam 8:5; cf. vv. 1-22).  Though they had, in fact, rejected God as their king, Providence permitted it nonetheless, because the last Scion would prove to be a surprise.

First Saul, who was then rejected; David, Solomon, Rehoboam, until all that was left was the "stump of Jesse" (Is 11:1; cf 10:32-34) after the Exile to Babylon in 582 B.C.  Still, the prophecy held promise:

The Lord swore an oath to David a sure oath / from which he will not turn back:  / "One of the sons of your body / I will set on your throne" (Ps 132:11).

We know how the story ends:  When the archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary, he said:

"He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His Kingdom there will be no end' (Lk 1:32-33).

What was the element of surprise?  Simply, that the God who was rejected as king over Israel became king once again in the God-Man, Jesus Christ; the kingship of God and the princedom of David's scion converged in one Person, the Emmanuel.  In dogmatic theology, we call this the Hypostatic Union.

But the kingship of Jesus isn't just Christmasy; it is also Easterly.  St John's gospel uses word-play to highlight Jesus' kingship by using the rhetorical device of irony--the mocking purple robe, crown of thorns, and reed, highlighting, in fact, the royalty, crown, and authority of Jesus.  And the Cross was His throne.

Yet what's often overlooked is the title of Lord.  St Paul often began his epistles by referring to "the Lord Jesus Christ..."  But "Lord" is neither honorific nor ornamental; it is thickly theological.

In the very first sermon ever preached by the Church, St Peter said, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36).  Moments ago, he quoted Psalm 110, "The LORD said unto my Lord, 'Sit thou at my right hand...'" (110:1), a reference to the Father's declarative utterance to Jesus at His Ascension, where He "sat down at the right hand of God" (Mk 16:19).

In a later sermon, St Peter likewise said--

"You know the Word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all--the Word which was proclaimed..." (Acts 10:34).

In his magnificent epistle to the Holy Roman Church, St Paul wrote:

None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.  If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.  For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 

In  other words, nothing, but nothing escapes the Lordship of Jesus--either in life or in death.  More to the point, the Apostle to the Nations said, the very Paschal Mystery of Jesus' death and resurrection had this end in purpose:  "that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."

In the Greek language, κύριος (kyrios), "Lord,"--Dominus in Latin--refers to someone who "exercises absolute ownership rights" (HELPS Word-Studies, #2692).  Thus "Lord Jesus Christ" is neither honorific nor ornamental, far from it; it refers to the absolute authority of Jesus.  Hence,

Therefore God has highly exalted Him / and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, / that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow / in heaven or on earth or under the earth, / and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, / to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:9-11).

I believe that many people in the Church have contributed to her faltering missionary outreach precisely because the the sovereignty and reign of Jesus has been compartmentalized and put away because the topic of Christ's sovereignty and reign is considered too impolitic for our supposedly enlightened age, not unlike how many Canadians speak little about our Queen.  (How often do we even pray for Her Majesty--as we pray for government leaders--in the General Intercessions at Mass?)

What is the result of muting our proclamation of Jesus' Lordship?  Three things, at least.

First, it unravels the Gospel tapestry which has, in its very warp and weave, the Lordship of Jesus who, as the descendent of David (Mt 1:1; Jn 7:42) , is the heir to his throne (Mt 22:43-45) and, in the mystery of the Ascension, took His seat at the Father's right hand, and from there to rule.

Second, it fails to tell the truth about Creation, which is really ruled by Christ.  It is a lie by omission to keep quiet about the reality of Jesus' Lordship.  In Apocalypse 5, we see the image of the Lamb "with seven horns"--a Jewish apocalyptic symbol of fullness of authority, who alone is "worthy to open the scroll" of human history which He rules.

Third, it is mutinous on the part of Christians to speak little, if at all, about who Our Lord is, thus lulling us into thinking that we, or "our best selves" is our master.  As St Paul said, "You are not your own!" (1 Cor 6:19).

A few years ago, on the weekend of the Solemnity of Christ the King, an Australian cleric expressed his discomfort with the theme of Christ's kingship and even suggested that the feast be done away with.  In so doing, he betrayed even a basic ignorance of a fundamental, profound, Biblical-theological truth and unwittingly espoused an alternative gospel.  In so doing, he was dismantling the City of God and advanced the antithetical City of Man.  

Wishfully thinking away will not erase the Lordship of Jesus, so it's best to get with the programme.

As we await the fullness of the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus has tasked us with building the City of God, a task which has no escape clause if we claim to be His disciples.  But if we build this City apart from the Lordship of Jesus, we risk a scenario of "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians."  By remembering Who is in charge, and to Whom we owe our personal allegiance, the Church's apostolic life of building the City of God can be renewed.