The Festival of Christ the King is a comparatively recent innovation. It was instituted by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quas Primas published in 1920. The Encyclical’s underlying purpose is arguably political and economic, but its overt point uncontroversially Christian and is concisely stated in its first paragraph that “So long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Saviour there would be no really hopeful prospect of lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” The Festival of Christ the King, coming at the culmination of the Christian year was intended to encourage individuals and states to look for that peace and submit to the rule of Christ as King. Pius XI is a controversial pope, and his subsequent toleration (to put it at its kindest) of fascism cast a shadow on his intentions in Quas Primas I have chosen to take the words at their face value and treat them as benign.
The Festival may be modern, but the ideas behind it have been constant themes throughout the history of at least the Western Church. For much of the history of this country and others in western Europe there has been a constant questioning of the role of Christianity (and most recently, any religion) in politics.
In this country, the conflict between church and state was largely settled at, and following, the reformation and a civil war. Our state is nominally Anglican, and the King is the titular head of the Church of
England. This arrangement has a few practical implications, but for most the fact that we have an Established Church of which the King is the Head, means nothing at all. The only topical question is whether a few Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords where, on the whole, they are a voice of reason, decency and humanity (and therefore unpopular with governments).
Looking further into the past and elsewhere, it has been common for kings (and other governments) to claim divine authority for their rule. The record, however, of Holy Roman Emperors and other depots many of whom believed themselves appointed by God, is not encouraging. Having a Christian government does not it seems make rulers any more likely to act in accordance with Christian principles- even as Christian principles were understood at the respective times.
So, one might reasonably think that Christianity is irrelevant to contemporary politics in this country (and the picture would be even bleaker across the Channel, as one can see in Balzac’s and Trpllope’s contrasting depiction of clergy) and that the influence of the church has, historically, been largely deleterious. (And one is rather tempted think that its influence is even worse across the Atlantic).
So should we give up the idea of Submitting to the rule of Christ and looking for peace in the kingdom of Christ?
I would want to take the kingdom bit out of the question. We are very lucky in having a King at present who seems to me to be a much
safer guardian of our laws and values than the government itself. But the “rule of Christ” and certainly the Kingdom of Christ do not need to imply an autocratic monarchy.
I would also want to recognise the fact that even when governments (most royal ones) were doing terrible things in the name of Christianity, organised Christians, mostly monks and nuns (paradoxically those who had withdrawn from the world) were doing much of the work which we now expect of governments, in, for example, running hospitals and schools, orphanages and universities.
Perhaps more importantly, but less obviously, we should recognise and sometimes advertise, the extent to which commonly accepted ethics and legal principles were formulated or articulated from classical origins by Christian thinkers who would have seen law and ethics as just a branch of theology. Medieval thought is alive and well; that is not a trump card in arguing with proselytising humanists, but it’s useful as sort of mental or moral comfort blanket.
And I suggest we should argue for Christianity; not perhaps in Pope Pius’ language but certainly in pressing for truly Christian values when they are opposed by the prevalent inhumanity which feeds on materialistic fear, selfishness and greed. Public argument for those values, as happens in the House of Lords, is important and I would like to see our bishops joined, ex officio by other church leaders and indeed the leaders of other faiths.
The Kingdom of God has been established but not yet completed; finishing the job is down to us, as we are Christ’s agents on earth. We, of course, need His inspiration and grace for the task but we have to do the work. We can however hope that others may join us just as small acts of kindness ripple out because demonstrations of love in action have an affect beyond their immediate impact. I was hearing on Thursday at the Diocesan Conference, about the many and various outreach projects of so many churches throughout the Diocese; winter night shelters, lunch clubs, food banks, work in hospitals and youth clubs to name a few. They reach numerically very few homeless, lonely, poor, sick, disenchanted people, but they show the power of loving one’s neighbour.
I suggest we can best realise Pius XI’s hope for the rule of Christ, by celebrating this feast in a practical way by redoubling our efforts to meet the need in the world around us and doing so with our fellow Christians of all shapes, sizes, colours and traditions. And celebration it will be, as bringing even a little joy creates more joy. Amen