Christ the King of what, precisely?
Watch out for the tautological landmines, but David Adams offers a painful and incisive indictment: Jesus would not have been a Christian. No way, no how.
Consider how far removed from His teachings even modern “enlightened” Christianity is.....
Would He who loved humanity in all its forms, have agreed with the rampant homophobia of Anglican clergy in Africa, and the institutional misogyny that underpins opposition to female clerics? Would He, who was at pains to point out His own imperfections, have allowed to go unchallenged the notion of infallibility in a mortal?
....
Those who came after Christ, purporting to follow in His footsteps, are guilty of complicating and twisting the message.
Adams has more to say here, but let's not lose the point. This is celebrated as Christ the King Sunday. What we seem to be meant to ask ourselves is this: over what precisely does this one called the Christ reign?
h/t Thinking Anglicans
Christ the King of what, precisely?
Jesus is the King, first and foremost, of the rabble, the least amongst us, the lowly, the poor whom he calls blessed, and then he's King of the rest of us.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
June Butler
Posted by GrandmèreMimi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 21, 2010 1:39 PM
For a better exploration of the point David Adams is making ( after reading the entire article) it might be helpful to review The Grand Inquisitor by Dostoevsky.
The challenge comes when the question about Jesus and Christianity is asked from a reflective and reflexive point of view i.e., How Does Jesus help Christians understand who we are called to be? I like an answer framed by Leander Keck who writes,
" Jesus death, isolated from neither the life that preceded it nor the from his resurrection that followed it, continues to be the prism through which Christian Gentiles must understand both God and themselves."
[Leander Keck. "Who is Jesus: History in Perfect Tense". University of South Carolina Press, 2000. p. 140].
Getting back to David Adam's article more directly, there is a great deal of anger aimed the Church, in fact, a great deal of anger, indeed rage is likely a better word, inside the Church--Anglican included. Sadly, for an organization that champions the pastoral response, there seems to be little ability to find a way to deal with it. Cover-ups and Covenants, for different reasons, go hand in hand in making matters much worse. One is a crown of thorns the other vinegar to drink.
Posted by Rod Gillis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 21, 2010 3:40 PM
He is the Lord of Heaven and earth, the Lord of history, the head of the Church.
But, His Church, as his earth, is populated by imperfect creatures, who though striving to do good, yet sin.
We know He loves us despite our sins and faults, because He has repeatedly told us so, and came down from Heaven to do it. But we don't always listen.
As for the church--perhaps we become outraged at its shortcomings and yes, sins, precisely because we have met the King there, and the gap between what He is and what we are, is so great....
Posted by Robert Martin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 22, 2010 9:06 AM