Kings and Kingdoms - learning about being a Christian from the Coronation of King Charles III

Photo credit - personal screen shot

The King and Queen 

THE KING IS CROWNED!

There hasn't been one  for over 70 years!…a British Coronation that is!

A ritual that has been in place since 1066, today, the 6th May 2023, King Charles III is the 40th monarch to be crowned in Westminster Abbey.

So of course the world is a-buzz about it - both for and against.

But whatever your views on the British monarchy, in the lead-up to this special day, I was thinking about some things in a Coronation for us to learn about what it means to have a King….things that we often overlook in our 'modern' world, but which have implication for every Christian, and implications for how we understand the gospel, and implications for how we make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the King of Kings.

1. A King means there is a Kingdom

This might seem obvious. But something that I am hearing and seeing as different in this Coronation from previous Coronations is that although there is a King, 2023 features a world as a whole who wants their governing systems to be more 'democracy' than 'monarchy'….and maybe that is because monarchy, rather than democracy, more closely resembles theocracy. We live in a world that not only is more and more rejecting God, but it also says it has an aversion to hierarchy (which I don't fully understand since the workplace still functions on a hierarchical system and the hope of getting 'promotions', and no-one seems to be bothered by that). So since a King means a Kingdom, it also means a hierarchy. It means someone 'rules' over me or has authority over me and I don't necessarily have a 'say' unless the King asks for my input.

And this is where the UK (and thus places like Australia and New Zealand and Canada etc) have constitutional monarchies which form a unique blend of democracy under monarchy, where the King is meant to be making a choice to 'govern' by having the people's input via Parliament….although now-days the system has become more symbolic than anything else.

But the picture is still there, that a King means a Kingdom - where the highest ruler is the monarch.

2. A King and a Kingdom means loyalty

In the lead-up to the Coronation a topic that came up a few times in what I listened to, was the issue of loyalty. 

A Coronation is about loyalty - establishing and declaring loyalty of the King to God and his people and the people to their King. First loyalty is to God Himself by the King, but then the 'peers' on behalf of the people 'respond' with their own pledge of loyalty. Thus all the Lords and Ladies would be invited to attend (my ancestor included) in all their colourful robes and coronets showing by their presence to the watching world, that the King is not on his own as a sole entity of power, but has his body of loyal social leaders who will carry out his will and support and 'rule' with him as a kind of extension of himself. They are 'with him' to do 'his will' for the good of his kingdom.

3. A King and a Kingdom means allegiance

Another talking point in the lead-up to the Coronation has been the oaths of allegiance.

This is where not only the King pledges to the people, but the people pledge allegiance to the King. 

The King's oath is maybe the most solemn part of the ceremony, and is a pledge (in summary) to be loyal to God, the people and the church - in that order:

The first statement of allegiance is from the King to the people. What the people say is only after that…and in response to what the King already pledges.

The People say:

I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty and to your heirs and successors according to law, so help me God.

This Coronation is slightly different as the numbers attending are fewer so not all the Lords and Ladies will be present as in previous Coronations (only about 80 out of over 1000 total), so they don't do any full pledge of allegiance on behalf of 'all their subjects' known as the 'Homage of the Peers'. Not sure if this is the reason or not, but this time in the age of internet technology and real-time viewing, the Archbishop invited everyone in the UK and Realms and Territories (the wider Kingdom) to join in and be included in the pledge themselves.

It was given as an 'invitation', but some felt it was coercion. Some of the younger  generations said they feel it's like a 'dictatorship'. For a generation who has been filled with notions of 'no-one can tell me what to do', for sure it feels incompatible with what they have been led to believe in recent decades.  Some  feel you can't pledge allegiance to someone who is not popular or done anything to deserve respect. Some feel it is 'unusual' for individuals to swear allegiance - although it is what every Member of the British Parliament has already done  However, no-one seems to feel it unusual that Americans are all expected to swear allegiance to their flag. What I think is unusual is that people don't seem to question an oath of allegiance to an inanimate flag in the USA, but feel uncomfortable with allegiance to a person in the UK. I wonder if this problem is because in our 'modern' world people like to feel like they have a say in their own destiny (via representatives and President that they participating in electing), and don't like to think of a situation where they might be bound to the will of someone else.

4. A King and a Kingdom means service and servanthood

Primarily the oaths of allegiance mean a pledge of service to God and others. The people to their King and the the King to his people.

The Oath which the King takes is essentially a pledge not of prideful self-honour, but of humble submission to God and position of being a servant to the people.

It's only after his oath that he is anointed as King and given the orb and sceptre (symbols of God's entrusted power and justice among other symbols) to rule his people, because his power is not for his own greater glory but in order to serve the people, under God.

Phrases are used in describing the symbols such as representing being an 'advocate for those in need', and 'not of might but of mercy' and  'glorious in virtue', and  'authority with gentleness and grace, trusting not in yourself but in God'. All of these are persistent reminders that his rule is meant to be focused not on himself but on God and the good of others.

It is emphasised by the ceremony that this is a humble role, under God and for others….of course this was profoundly displayed when the king has his robes all taken off him and he stands just in his untucked shirt and trousers, and is then anointed with oil, and then kneels still only in his shirt and trousers before God.

The Coronation is primarily a Christian ceremony in which it is believed and thus acknowledged that the King has been appointed by God and thus anointed as a servant of God and in place to serve his people faithfully. 

5. A King and a Kingdom means honour

Thousands of people lined the streets of London to get a glimpse of the King and the accompanying processions on Coronation Day. Millions more watched on-line. And if it is anything like Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, people will have felt 'honoured' to participate just by 'being there'. 

Those who attended inside the Abby will have felt an especially high honour which they will remember forever and will tell their descendants for the rest of their lives. 

The King himself understands the greatness of the honour he now has and the weight of massive repsonsibility that comes with it. He has had more than 70 years in training and constant re-inforcing of what this day for him means.

6. A King and a Kingdom reflect a Greater King and an Eternal Kingdom

As much as we might 'like' the idea of democracy as a form of government, it does not reflect how God functions with His people and it does not help us very much to comprehend and thus live in the light of the meaning of being part of a Kingdom.

However, there is much we can learn as we look at earthly Kings and Kingdoms, about how, as Christians, we are meant to function in relation to God as our King. 

1. In God's family, we are in a Kingdom. If we don't recognise that, we fail to understand the terms and nature of salvation in Christ. God does not function in terms of a democracy, but His governing is a theocracy - He is King and His word and will is to direct all our conduct. There is hierarchy and He is supreme in authority and we are to submit to Him in obedience, and honour Him in all things. 

2. God's Kingdom is all about loyalty - which is another word for faithfulness. As Christians, we are called to faithfulness to God. It is on the basis of 'faithfulness' to His will and purposes that we will enter into Eternity with Him and when He will say 'well done good and faithful servant'. We are called to loyalty to Him to the exclusion of all others. There is no dual-citizenship in God's Kingdom - its all loyalty to Him.

3. God's kingdom is about allegiance - this is another way of saying 'loyalty'. We honour God in such a way that His will is what is meant to determine our choices. We 'submerge' our will into His. What He directs, we do. We are not to 'second-guess' His commands or think we can 'opt-out' of what we don't like. 

4. God's kingdom means service and servanthood. The world unfortunately often think that a King is an oppressor, a superior who is only interested in his own wealth and success. How wrong they are!  And if they only opened their eyes and ears a little more, they might catch a marred glimpse of 'servant-king' contexts by honestly looking at the late Queen Elizabeth II and the now King Charles III. They might have great wealth (which also brings great responsibility and expenses), but they could lock it up with no-one able to ever see or enjoy it…yet the public can go to the Tower of London and see the Crown Jewells, they can book a tour of a palace, they are invited to Buckingham Palace garden parties, they set up programs for the betterment of the people (such as the Prince's Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme). They don't ever get to 'retire' and go live their 'own life'. Their birth is not all about undeserved privilege, but is also about unnegotiable lifelong unrelenting responsibilities toward others, whether they like it or not. Unlike the rest of the population who are 'free to choose' their life course, the royal family has no such 'choice'. Their 'privilege' is a self-sacrificing covenant commitment. 

God as our King is not an uncompassionate oppressor. He is the most kind-hearted, self-sacrificing One, who has given His covenant commitment to those who are His. When Jesus came into the world, He said that to see Him was to see the Father (John 14:9). He also said that He did not come to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:28). As Christians we serve the One who serves us. That is also why a Christian marriage is all about a wife who serves her husband who serves her. Yes, he is her 'head', as Christ is the head of the church, but it is a loving self-sacrificing servant-leadership. We should not be surprised that a world outside of Christ finds such concepts hard to comprehend. But it is the profound gift we have as Christians.

He is our King who does not selfishly hold his honour to himself, but humbly comes to serve and bless, and willingly welcomes us to Himself for us to share in His glory as co-heirs of life.

Out of loyal allegiance to Him, we serve as the extension of His hand in the world - an earth over which we are meant to 'rule' and have 'dominion', under the higher authority of the King of all the earth. We are His body, the shiners of His light of love, compassion, grace and truth to the world, as we entreat and win others to become part of His kingdom. We are ambassadors of His kingdom, careful to live according to what pleases Him and brings honour and praise the the King of the Kingdom. 

5. Ultimately a King and His Kingdom is about honour. This is an honour not primarily about popularity, but position. Not first about what he 'does' but who he 'is'. Our modern Western world has pre-occupied itself with an 'achieved' and 'doing' kind of honour. We feel we are exempt from having to respect someone if they haven't 'earnt' our respect by 'doing' sufficiently honourable acts of conduct. However, God in His holy perfection, always does according to who He is. Thus He is perfect in what He does because He is perfect in who He is. There is record of His faithful deeds, to confirm His faithful character, but primarily we give him 'ascribed' honour with our trust and loyalty, firstly because of His position - who He is - even in a situation where we do not yet know exactly what He will do.

We willingly and eagerly pledge our full committed allegiance to Him because He made the first commitment - to the world and the people He made and saved. We love because He first loved us even when we were unlovely. Our eternal confidence rests in His complete and unwavering faithfulness, even when we are unfaithful. Our honour rests on His.

As we watched a great and momentous event in history in this Coronation of King Charles III, the 40th British monarch to be crowned in Westminster Abbey, let us turn the eyes of our hearts to our King of Kings, the Lord Jesus Christ whose Kingship we pledge loyalty and allegiance to for all eternity, not for the protection of our body and well-being on this earth, but for the safety of our souls. As loyal subjects of His Kingdom, let our hearts rise in honour to His name and let us shine out His glory to the world and bring others to His eternal glorious kingdom.

Learning from 'SPARE'

Photo - screenshot 

Last week Prince Harry released his long awaited (or feared!) book 'SPARE', supposedly the fastest selling non-fiction book and was the #1 seller on Amazon for the week. And yes, it is being read even here in Africa!

It has gained understanding, sympathy and praise from some quarters - as giving his side of the story, but seems to have made other readers disgusted, appalled, saddened and horrified as being a book that just tears people down, while others are refusing to read it. Although Americans seem more accepting of it than the British, even some Americans who don't understand the British Royal Family, have a problem with someone publicly trashing one's family and publicly exposing family stuff that should stay private behind closed doors...and all for a reward of millions of dollars...without mentioning the risks now brought to military veterans and beyond, over 'kill-count' revelations. Australians seem to be having mixed reactions. One Christian Aussie blogger suggested that to enter into the discussion or read the book is akin to fuelling or participating in 'gossip'.

I must confess I have not yet read the book and I'm not necessarily convinced I want to spend the money or carve out the time to read it…especially just now. But I have watched the interviews with him to hear his own words, and viewed/listened to some of the commentary on the book, not least out of interest in honour-shame dynamics of people and of the British Royal Family and British culture. And I'm not convinced that something that is influencing millions of readers and viewers across the globe should be totally ignored by the church….not to join the gossip, but for knowing the wisest and best ways to bring light and truth into such a situation and discussion.

But, in the light of the honour-shame interest, I thought it might be worth to briefly highlight three elements which stood out to me, which I think are worth reflecting on and learning from to be better equipped to understand our world and be witnesses and gospel-bringers in it.

SPARE

The book title 'Spare' is certainly a powerful one-word title. Prince Harry gave the reasoning behind the book title in an interview saying that it was so he could 'own' a word that had been used against him for a long part of his life. 

This appears to be a desire to 'redeem' a word and reverse a status. What he is doing here seems to be wanting to change the honour status of a label, from something that shamed him to something that is part of achieving value and worth. It re-assigns value…from negative value (shame) to positive value (honour).

It is a desire to reverse the honour-code.

We all have a deep inbuilt desire to reverse our 'shame' status and gain an 'honour' status. But ultimately and sadly, our own efforts to redeem ourselves are not likely to achieve what we hope in the end, or at most they become a pseudo-honour that Satan convinces our own hearts is the answer to our problems and keeps us away from the true and supreme shame-to-honour gift of grace that God's own Son (our perfect redeemer), died to gift us.

Shame

Maybe one of the biggest problematic and dangerous ramifications of his book stems from his comments about numbering those whom he killed while a soldier, and how he had to view those people not as real people at the time. 

In refuting the accusation that his comment was a 'boast', in one of the interviews he gives his reason for numbering those he killed as: 'I made a choice to share it because having spent nearly two decades working with veterans all around the world, I think the most important thing is to be honest and be able to give space to others to be able to share their experiences without any shame. And my whole goal and attempt with sharing that detail is to reduce the number of suicides. 

Despite what many believe is a lack of wisdom in such ill-advised sharing in a book like this, what becomes obvious is, Prince Harry's awareness of the destructive nature of shame (or what I would say is 'mis-placed shame') and his desire to escape it, not only personally but also try to help others to escape it. 

Suicide is at its core most often a desire to either escape, avoid or end humiliation and shame. Suicide is real, and the desires and fears behind it are real. However, once again it is a lie of Satan and our sin-bent hearts that it is the way out of shame. What Harry has got right is that suicide is not the answer. However, to beat suicide, and stay alive on this earth to try to conquer this earth's shame, and yet ignore or refuse God's offered rescue from a far greater eternal shame (which we will wish to escape from but will endure forever with no escape), is a far greater horror than suicide. And when we don't deal with shame, God's way, all other therapies (in missing the mark of God's solution), will have their own other negative impacts one way or another either on the person or those around them. For example, the subtle but powerful allurement of shaming others in order to elevate oneself, as a mis-placed means to overcome shame, is a path that will ultimately bring more pain.

However, having said that, this reminds us yet again that in our bringing of the gospel…the good news…to a sin-sick world, we must bring good news for shame. If we don't wake up to the reality of this, we not only fail to bring the full truth of the good news to hearts, but by our silence on the subject of shame, we end up pushing people to search for false and temporary shame-rescue options, and keep them thinking that Jesus Christ has nothing to offer.

Unconscious Bias

In one interview Harry talked about how he thinks the Royal Family need to deal with 'unconscious bias' that can lead to racism.

Interestingly in another interview, he has now very much tried to disassociate himself from labelling the Royal Family as racist.

But what is interesting here is that he has highlighted a very much overlooked factor in human community life - that of 'unconscious bias'….but his view of it is actually quite limited. 

Scripture gives us the truth that it is a more pervasive problem than we might like to admit.  Human beings all have an 'unconscious bias' - in other words a proclivity toward something that we are most often oblivious to, naive about, and unaware of. And for some, racism might be part of that of course (...and racism doesn't just mean tension between people of differing skin colour, or white toward black….racism can also be white to white or black to black!). 

Interestingly some are commenting in response, that 'unconsious bias' is still something people should be held responsible for, and it can't be detached from deliberate 'racism'.

However, there is a far more serious and sinister 'unconscious bias' than is being raised by Prince Harry ….which is our basic human assumption that we are in the right, that others are to blame for our problems, and that we should make sure to vindicate ourselves and shame others so that we can maintain or 'prove' our worth to ourselves or to others. 

Furthermore, we have a deadly bias toward ignoring God, and looking to creation (self and others) rather than the Creator to find honour and significance.

Fundamentally our unconscious bias is toward sin and away from God. That is the most serious type of unconscious bias that we need remedy for, first and foremost.

Yet, within this is an unconscious bias in us all, to seek honour. Romans 2 tells us this. Where we seek honour determines our life dignity, direction, and destiny. We need to fundamentally recognise the reality of that bias in our own heart and the hearts of others if we are going to understand how our fallen sin-bias functions. It is only then we are likely to grow in our openness and willlingness to have God show us where we seek honour in a mis-placed way which thus blocks (quenches and grieves) God and his work, and therefore blocks his fruit-bearing in our lives and his light-shining through our lives. 

And yes…it is also true, that 'unconscious' or not, God still judges sin. It is wrong in his eyes whether we are aware of it or not. But unlike much of todays world, where the only answer to such partiality (whether conscious or not) is 'cancellation' without offer of forgiveness, God has an offer of forgiveness and grace. God's condemnation of sin, which brings 'cancellation' and 'separation' eternally, only has to be endured if we don't take him up on his already secured promise of his forgiveness gift in Jesus Christ.

So, that was just a few more points to ponder….and maybe some ways you can ask the Lord to help you use them in conversation, to bring the gospel into the conscious awareness and needs of desperately honour-hungry hearts that fill our world.

Go into all the world and bring this good news!

With honour they served...

photo credit: screenshot

With honour they served…

This is a phrase that has been said maybe hundreds of times in the last week or so, as people remember the two Queensland Police officers that were brutally gunned down in the course of duty near Tara.

As the ABC covered the memorial service at the massive Boondall Enterntainment Centre on the 21st December 2022 and the 1.5km guard of honour of thousands of Police officers after the service, the term 'a huge display of honour' was used. 

It was an horrific crime and a fitting tribute. 

But it's the 'honour' element I want to highlight.

I can't help thinking that this is the biggest 'honouring' event I have seen in the Australian context in my lifetime.  Ok I've only live just over half a century which isn't that long in the grand scheme of things, but I began to wonder why there seemed to be this deep need in the psyche of so many to do such an huge 'honouring' and for so many members of the public to feel they needed to be there.

Other Police officers have been killed before, hundreds of our military have been killed across the world, yet this seemed to evoke an excessively strong response.  

Maybe it was because it was such an intentional slaughter of innocent lives and happened in a close-knit and normally 'quiet' rural setting.  But it provoked me to ponder this all a bit more.

So what might be going on here…..

Although we talk about 'honour-shame' oriented cultures being primarily Asia and Africa, we must not overlook that deep in the heart of us all is the hunger for honour…and as we see in this incident we are not only hungry for our own honour, but I think we are also desperate to find someone/something great and noble which to give our honour. And as the West more and more rejects, ignores or forgets about God for who He really is, the West will also more and more go looking for everything related to honour, but on an earthly level, thinking that is all there is. Honour on the level of God and eternity are no longer factors that are embraced.

In a world that has rejected God, there is no God to honour, there is no Jesus to honour. There is no-one in our lives on a daily basis to salute, to bow to, to humbly honour for their greatness, their goodness, their sacrifice for others.  We were made to 'look up' to a greater glory than our own. 

Like I talked about with the Queen's passing, and all the tributes and people feeling 'honoured' to just be in the room where her body Lay in State, people would have felt a sense of humble honour to attend and pay tribute to these two courageous, sacrificial officers.

Maybe it is also that unlike the Queen, these two officers represented in people's minds a situation of 'good people' who intentionally and knowingly deny themselves and give their lives every day knowing under what risks they serve, and they paid the price of social 'badness' with their lives - they sacrifically suffered something they should never have suffered. Is it that this reveals just a hint of the deep unconscious reality that our hearts want to honour such a person, and such a person deserves honour….and yet we miss honouring the One - the Lord Jesus Christ - who was perfectly good and suffered the greatest and most henious murder this earth has witnessed. 

Maybe this is another situation that you can use in conversation with others to draw them to think about matters of the heart…..ask them why they think we humans feel a need to give honour at all?…or why we say the police 'serve with honour'?…and what honour has to do with giving of oneself for others?….what else can you think of that might lead a person to think more deeply even if just for a moment, about why we act the way we do and what this might teach us about why we were made and Who made us….and Who deserves our highest honour and also wants to 're-make' us anew….

….The 'Who' of Christmas!…Jesus Christ the Lord!

Falling from Grace - honour concepts right in front of our noses that we often fail to see

Photo: screenshot

A short while back, the phrase 'Fallen from Grace' was in the headlines again.

Not long ago, it was Prince Andrew's 'fall from grace' that filled the news headlines. 

This time it was the recently ousted British Prime Minister Liz Truss…although the reasons for the two are hardly similar, the result elicited the same phrases by the media.

So what was going on here, and what can we learn?

We instinctively know that to 'fall from grace' is to lose your honour…to be in a state of shame…to not perform to the standard of basic social expectations. 

For Prince Andrew it was related to links with criminals of the sexual-abuse kind. What exactly he personally did has not been determined by the courts, but his associations and actions taken to settle the case out of court was enough, to not only gain the disdain of the public but also have his mother as Queen strip him of most of his royal status. So one could say he failed to live up to what was expected as morally acceptable as a normal citizen and human being let alone as a royal Prince.

For Liz Truss it was quite different - she was chosen as Prime Minister by her political party and did nothing illegal or immoral by any general moral code, except that she failed to act in a way that met the expectations of her parliament to steer the country in a manner considered to be stable and responsible in the opinion of the party. 

Now I don't want to get into any arguments on whether her policies were good, bad or otherwise. What I want to observe is this context of 'falling from grace'.

Both Prince Andrew and Liz Truss failed to meet expected standard in one form or another. Yet, their 'sins' were very, very different, and one could argue that why should Liz Truss be described in the same way as Prince Andrew?

But I think there are two significant things to learn from this.

1. It doesn't matter in which way you 'fall' short, the reality is that 'fallen short' you are.

2. If to 'fall from grace' means to no longer be in a position of honour or to lose honour, then we need to realise that the word 'grace' is rooted in honour, almost to the point of being a synonym of 'honour'.

Yet…'grace' is a word that we talk a lot about, especially as Christians, like it was some special concept all on its own. We don't stop to think whenever we read it in our bibles that this is a reality that is entwined, enmeshed, enveloped, infused and inextricably merged with honour.  It is often defined as 'God's unmerited favour'…but what is favour?  To favour someone is to particularly bestow some kind of honour on them. 

We seem to also recognise that to use the word 'grace' in the word 'disgraced' is to recognise a sense of losing honour…yet we still fail to just come out and say that 'grace' means honour.

Surely then we must stop and consider God's grace to us as God's honour put on us.  Paul in Romans calls it a gift (Romans 5)…and yes it is a gift…and yes it is unmerited and there are no good works that we can do to gain or achieve such honour being given to us. God's grace is God's unmerited gift of his favour toward us…his favour of giving us the full honour of being in his Son, joint heirs with our Lord Jesus Christ so that our sin's (falling short) shame is covered, our 'disgrace' has been  removed and we have been 're-graced' in Christ.

It is none of us and all of Him, we in Christ, and Christ in us. 

We are now accepted before God in the glory of His Son and one day will receive the full promise of resurrection glory for our bodies too. We live in, and with, the sure hope of that full glory yet to come. 

But meanwhile instead of our sin counting against us, we are counted in the glory/honour status of Christ, and indwelt by Him in the glory of him having the fulness of the God-head dwelling in him bodily.

So….. let that little phrase 'fallen from grace', as it occurs from time to time in our world, remind you of the grace you have truly fallen from in the Garden of Eden's greatest 'Fall' of all, and then ponder afresh the wonderful grace you have been given in God's unmerited favour gifted to us in the glory of Christ.

Selfie deaths are ringing Society's alarm bells! - why honour and shame are hiding at the core of this problem

According to the Beareau of Statistics:

• 34 deaths from falls from buildings and structures just last year alone in Australia 
• 20 deaths from accidentally falling off cliffs
• 5 deaths from skiing or skating 'accidents'

According to the news report this is the highest number of deadly cliff falls in ten years and double the number of 5 years ago

and its believed 'dangers stunts are attracting attention on social media seen to fuel the fire'

The news report went on to say:

'it can be death or glory in the hunt for social media status'

'young selfie-obsessed Australians are putting their life on the line'

Content on media platforms such as TikTok, SnapChat and Youtube (of the Selfie's of other's risk-taking for the 'best' selfie)... is believed to be driving others to 'outdo' what they see just to get 'notoriety'.

Psychologists are concerned, 

Emergency Service personnel are concerned,

 the media are highlighting it, 

and families are suffering the loss of young lives in their prime.  

But is the answer to put more pressure on these platforms 'to make sure the content is safe for our children'? as the psychologist suggested???

Maybe the problem is not just that these images are viewed, but that after viewing them others want to not just copy, but 'outdo' what they see.

The viewing is not the problem…the response to the viewing is the problem.

So then we have to ask, why does someone respond the way they do?

Why do they want to take the risk in the first place?

The news report contained some key words that should alert us! ……'glory'….'notoriety'….'status'

This is an honour hunger problem!

At least it's being thought about slightly more deeply and being recognised as not just a physical problem of physical deaths (that's not to say the loss of physical life isn't something to be concerned about).

This is actually not just that people are dying from physical injuries of falling off buildings and cliffs or in skiing accidents. These deaths are caused by a deeper issue. It is a heart problem …but not the physical kind. 

Seeking for Status is at the Heart of the Selfie Quest.  It is the heart seeking for honour, for glory, for notoriety, for fame, for significance and sense of worth. But instead of seeking it and finding true significance and honour as created by the Creator and redeemed by the Redeemer, they are seeking it by accomplishment, popularity, by being 'better' than others…trying to 'outdo' others in the competition for 'likes'. 

 If we don't recognise our ascribed honour and worth in God's eyes—as the work of God's hands in creation and work of the cross in redemption, we will get busy trying to do our own 'work' of trying to achieve honour and worth in our own eyes and the eyes of other people around us.

This is a 'falling short' of God's glory and seeking after mis-placed glory that is simply not only chasing the wind, but ultimately bringing death filled with eternal shame (Daniel 12:2). 

Sin's lie is stealing life…literally!

Scripture tells us that if we seek to keep, save and love our life we will lose it, but it's only when we are willing to lose it, that we will truly find it (Luke 17:33, John 12:25). Trying to get glory status our way will eventually only end in the opposite.

This world needs the gospel…the good news that true honour and glory can only be found in God through life in Christ…glory that brings life abundant and eternal - better than any temporary adrenaline risk-taking rush, notoriety, and its deadly ends.

By using this news headline as a conversation starting point, who could you bring this gospel good news to today?

The Queen is now with her King of Kings: Snippets of learning more about honour dynamics amidst the death of Her Majesty - Snippet 7

photo credit

This is the last in a series of  'snippets' from the honour contexts being heard in responses and reporting surrounding the world's mourning and memories of the late Queen Elizabeth II  (7 in total - 1 for each decade of her 70 year reign 😊)

SNIPPET 7

It is surprising in some ways that the Queen's death was even headline news in the USA - where back in 1776 they had very deliberately left monarchy behind.  

Folks in the USA were not only observing, they were interested, and fascinated. 

But their comments and questions revealed a great deal about the differences between living in a land with a monarchy and living in a land that had intentionally rejected monarchy as part of their Declaration of Independence. In 1776 with 27 grievances against King George III the 13 colonies at the time declared : 'That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown'. But in so doing, they began a new way of governance totally devoid of all reference to monarchy. 

Yet the Queen's death seemed to prompt them to think more deeply about the differences between their system of governance and the monarchy of the UK. 

Let's first look a little and learn from what has been noticed about a monarchy by those who look on from a land that rejected monarchy, who went a different way, and now wishes to ponder or explore more of its significance, because what I see emerging is that even if we 'try' to reject monarchy, the concept of monarchy—to have a King—is embedded in our human DNA…....

Even if the USA rejected monarchy and Americans are thus not supposed to care too much about the Queen's death, they began to wonder if they 'should care' as Fox News podcast presenter Will Cain said:  

'I feel like as a birthright of the revolution I shouldn't have to care about the monarchy…that my forefathers died and won a war so that I could care more about Texas Alabama on this Saturday than the monarchy in England…but I do feel, and I think you helped highlight this in a conversation we had this weekend that I should appreciate the value of constancy and tradition that is represented in the monarchy and should be marked with the passing of the Queen and ascension of the King. Why should I care?'

Douglas Murray, who Will Cain was interviewing about British monarchy vs American Oligarchy, commented that in addition to the Queen being like a last public figure link to the era of bravery and courage to fight for virtue which epitomised those fighting against the Nazi's in WWII:

 "she represented a set of values which I believe many Americans as well as many British people fear have gone from society, ...the value of putting others above yourself, not saying its all about me, not moaning about yourself, Queen Elizabeth's thing she learnt from her mother ' never complain, never explain' . People don't want to hear your complaints. There was a saying in Britain in the past I grew up with 'mustn't grumble' - why should you not grumble, because everyone could grumble, you don't because you will only make other people's days worse. As a young woman she said 'my life whether it be short or long will be dedicated to your service' the service of her country. And this is among many other values she had, including her very deep Christian faith, these are values I think that a lot of people sense we have lost and that she was the last embodiment of those values".

This was similar to what Murray also said in his New York Post article:

That idea — of service — of putting others above yourself, and putting your country above everything but God is an idea that has become unpopular in much of Britain as it has in America. But it is the noblest of ideals: a demonstration of sacrifice and of a lack of self-centeredness. It was at the core of the Queen's being…..The concept of there being something bigger than yourself has been lost on some for the time being at least. Perhaps the Queen's passing will remind them — and all of us — of virtues that we will miss if they are permanently gone.

But in addition to her own personal values, there is the institution of monarchy. 

Some believe that it was only the Queen that people looked up to and not the institution itself, but when in a different interview in the Spectator, he was questioned about the institution itself and asked "why don't Americans understand Britian's monarchy?" Murray explained some of its benefits and how its positives go well beyond just Queen Elizabeth's personal popularity:

'A number of people say there is a problem with the monarchy which is that it seems to be the epitome of unearned privilege. [but] I keep saying to people well, that suggests that unearned privilege is something that is unheard of in America, which is a hard position to hold, and secondly it actually misses something very important…one of the remarkable things of the constitutional monarchy [is]that the inevitable national obsession with dynasties is focused on one dynasty and that one that has lasted more than 1000 years, the institution of the monarchy. 

To a great extent this is a political interest, but it is also to do with an inevitable biological interest which is our interest in watching genes play out, our interest in watching generation after generation of family—Where are the black sheep? Who are the bad eggs? Who are the people who really are the inheritors of the great figures of the past? and much more,….

But nationally, [on the UK] that obsession focuses solely on the institution of the monarchy. 

We don't have as a result, political dynasties. We don't have that. We have a little bit of it on the political left interestingly enough—the Ben family, Harriet Harmen of the Packenhams, you might say a little bit of millarbandary or….[but] we don't have political dynasties. Nobody is obsessed in Britian as to whether John Major's children are going to come back and save us. Or whether the Blairs are going to run for office again. 

Whereas in America, politics is very dominated by a few dynasties. 

People are obsessed with it. You can go back to the founding in the 19th Century in America to the Adams dynasty in American politics, you can look at the Roosevelts for instance, coming more up to date, the Kennedys. Even more up to date, look at the way in which over the past 25 years it has looked at times like the Presidency is going to rotate between the Clinton family and the Bush family!  

Look at the way people in which have wondered if Michelle Obama  is going to run for office. Is Chelsea Clinton going to run at some point? Are the Bushes going to offer us up a new generation of talent? Even the disrupters in American politics - Donald Trump…is Don junior going to run? 

Think of this is British terms and it seems obsurd. Are the Johnson children being lined up for political office? I would think not. 

One of the many many things that the constitutional monarchy does that is so good, is that it actually detoxifies the political arena from having hereditary electoral politics...As well as providing us with constitutional order and much much more.

Running for the top job in America means you have to able to bundle a lot of money, have a lot of connections nationally across all the states, and you could argue is that what we are really talking about (and this is what one American commentator said to me) is celebrity really. 

In order to run for office in America you need to be famous!…Dr Oz is agood example at the moment. If you are big on television…you can become big in politics. 

There is something in that, but that doesn't explain the dynasties other than they are well placed to bundle money and so on. 

But I think there is something else, I think there is sense that - and this is a very anti-Americocratic sense, there has been a sense that some people know how to rule. 

In Britain we get that out of the way with the house of Windsor. 

In America you just have this sense always there are some people who know how to do it…and how would X know how to do it, they haven't ever been near office. Whereas if people have been near office they somehow might be naturally knowledgeable about how to run the country, I do think it is an odd temptation, an odd inclination…its very anti-Americacratic and yet its wholly America.

In the same interview, it was put to Murray that there had been some American criticism of the British monarchy and accuse them of slavery crimes, but interestingly he highlighted (quoting Andrew Roberts interviewed on CNN) that rather than

'start attacking her late Majesty for the crimes of slavery they should remember it was her very distant ancestor George III who signed the anti-slavery act in 1807, many decades before American had a civil war and had to kill 600000 of its own citizens in order to do away with the vial trade, Britain did away with it peacefully and then policed the high seas for decades at enormous national cost. So I'm afraid what we see in some of the American response to the death of the Queen has been an alarming historic ignorance driven by an alarming present day anamous.'

It is interesting to thus note, that the very King that Americans had their grievances against—King George III—was this very same King who (after perseverance from Christians like William Wilberforce and John Newton) enabled the anti-slavery act long before the USA did anything about it!

Within hours of the Queen's death Jordon Peterson (a Canadian) was due to speak at a public lecture in the UK, and then did a Q&A following, in which he was asked for some thoughts about the death of Queen Elizabeth II. As to be expected, his comments were highly insightful…here are a few excerpts to ponder:

'I'm a great admirer of the constitutional monarchy system, there is a wisdom about it…there are other …monarchy systems still left in Europe but they are a pale reflection of what you've got in the UK...

The thing about the monarchy that is so cool is that in the United States there is the judiciary, the legistlative branch and the executive - that separation of powers  and the checks and balances that are part and parcel of that and that is a great system…and then you also have the States and they have their power against the Federal Government and that stops things from becoming too tryannical in principle. But here [UK]…you have four divisions - you have executive, legistlative, judicial and symbolic. And the monarch holds the symbolic weight and that's really smart because it separates it to some degree from the political weight.

You see what happens in the United States is first of all the President tends to turn into the Tzar, because they have this idea in the United States now like First Lady, what the H*** is that?  We don't have that in Canada. Nobody knows anything about Justin Trudeau's wife, and that's been the history of Canadian politicians, like just because you are Justin Trudeau's wife doesn't mean you're Queen! But in the United States, its like 'well you know, Hilary Clinton, maybe she's queen?'  

And that's partly because there is that demand for the symbolic weight that the leader should manifest. 

You also see that in some degree in the United States which is a star-worshipping culture obviously with the glitterality and royalty of Hollywood. And its better put there …in the entertainment section, even though that is somewhat dangerous as it tends to elevate actors to pronouncers of ethical virtues  but  better there than the political realm. But Trump he is like king and president rolled up into one and that is too much. 

And so I really admire the monarchical system and the UK has done a wonderful job of maintaining that.  ...This tradition that you have here, monarchical tradition…is tremendously attractive to people who don't have that…its is so theatrical, so unique. And then you had Queen Elizabeth…that's quite the woman there….how many 13? prime-ministers? So you had someone around to intimidate all your prime-ministers, that's a really good idea and I'm sure she did a fine job of that.   And you can imagine how useful it was psycologically…for the prime minister who has monarchical temptations in some sense (like Trump did) to have to go on a regular basis to this remarkable person who had seen this immense span of political history, and confess…in some real sense… and be subject to her cautious and wise judgement. Because she was a woman who was traditional and cautious and wise in the highest degree. (There were scandals in her family but you have a family and if people knew what was happening in your family don't you think there would be scandals)…she was remarkably free of scandals over that entire period….that's a h*** of a thing to manage for 70 years.

Not only are Peterson's comments extremely insightful and 'on point', but they along with comments from others help us understand more of what a monarchy is all about, by contrasting it with the 'lack of monarchy'. We see that its about a system that works, but also a person of long-serving integrity that gave her superior knowledge and wisdom above all those under her, especially in her latter years. 

Piers Morgan similarly quoted from a past Canadian Prime-minister who had said something like:

'because she had met almost every interesting person who ever lived in the last 70 years including every world leader, every scientist, every expert, everyone, she had extraordinary wisdom and knowledge that she just amassed over time, which she basically knew a lot about a lot'

Sebastian Milbank summed things up this way in his article 'God save the Queen - Britain will never be the same':

The monarchy has survived in a world that came to reject social hierarchy, deference, aristocracy, tradition and religion. With every force and sensibility turning away from it, the Queen still found ways to connect with ordinary people, to articulate a shared life, and mutely embodied in her conduct what our newly progressive nation no longer wished to hear explicitly articulated…...

And this too is the power of monarchy. It creates a sacred bond between the land we inhabit and the mortal body of the Queen. The life of our country, its sovereignty and laws, are not an abstraction or an agglomeration — it has a place, in the breast of its sovereign, our Queen. In a world of ever more virtual information, in which decisions are rarely made by a single individual, in which accountability is diffused amongst the chaos of vast, inhuman systems, this is a rare and precious thing.

One American lady interviewed who was waiting along the coffin procession route from Buckingham Palace said:

'There's not a single person in America, not a politician, not a notable [person] that I would have waited in the rain for hours to watch go by. The fact that I'm an American in the street in the rain waiting for your Queen to go by is….we don't have anything like this. It's a connection to history that you have, we really don't. Now we are struggling with our politics. We don't have anything 'above it'! 

SELAH - PAUSE TO PONDER

What emerges here, is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt hunger for a certain type/style of governance. We want a ruler to whom we give honour, but in the context of family, of belonging.

We naturally gravitate to form some kind of governance reflective of the governance we were created to have by God as King as part of his Kingdom family. On an earthly level that gets reflected in monarchy, and it has been particularly reflected in a long-reigning Godly Queen.

Some might say monarchy has too many opportunities for tyranny if the ruler/King/Queen is 'bad'. And so that may be. But there are also many opportunities for good through monarchy. Yes a presidential style democratic republic with certain terms and conditions might have some inbuilt safeguards (like the people being able to vote out a leader who becomes corrupt), but it relies on the people not being corrupt or corruptible and assumes the 'people' who elected such a leader will have enough of a mind-change or social-shift to then want to vote him out.  Living in Africa where the system of 'Chiefs' (aka Kings) is all around me, there are problems with having monarchy, but there are also benefits of monarchy.

So we can have benefits or problems with either type of governance, and much depends on where the hearts of the leaders and people are at in relation to God as to how the country's governance goes.

Britain, however, as Jordon Peterson so ably articulated, has a system that has tried to take the best of both systems (monarchy and parliament) and meshed them together. No earthly system is perfect and can be abused, but an earthly system that does not walk in step with how God made us to function is maybe likely to have more problems than first realised….not just in how society functions, but how Christians understand their Kingdom identity.

As Millbank mentioned, Monarchy brings 'life' to 'law' because governance is given 'personhood' that endures - yes in different people over generations, but in continuance of the same family over centuries. It brings something greater than just the law. Law is so much the focus of Republics that there develops a lack of anything being over and higher than the law. The 'system' produces the temporary leader (person) rather than the person (monarch) producing the system (constitutional monarchy and thus laws).

For example, in a monarchy that has a parliament, the parliament functions as the servant or 'arm' of the monarch. The monarch is not voted in by the people or the people's representatives in the parliament. This brings laws in connection with a lawgiver who is above the law and above the people, rather than seeing laws as something abstract that just keeps in step with whatever the majority of the populous wants whether it is good or not. As Jordon Peterson alluded to, this has become more 'symbolic' in the UK, but the 'symbol' is still there. 

But we also see that the 'person' (monarch) greatly influences how the system fleshes out and is viewed by the people. There is a monarchy system, but there is the person of the monarch which has been spoken about often in regard to the person and character of the Queen. People have commented on the length of her reign and the knowledge that gave her, which meant she didn't just have superiority in her position, but in her endurance and time. People continue to stand in amazement that she was the constant while so many other changes occurred in history, in Prime-ministers, in Presidents. This just reveals how much human beings are looking for and value a 'constant', someone who has the wisdom of time and experience beyond their own small corner. There is a sense of safety and trust in someone who is 'always there' with continual encouragement and stability amidst the turbulence of life. 

So many have mentioned that her first speech as a young girl was to 'be there' for her people and encourage them, and then one of her final speeches in COVID times was to 'be there' for her people and encourage them with hope and love.

Like having a father helps us learn how to relate to our Heavenly Father, having a monarch helps us understand just a little how to relate to God as King, and to recognise we need God as King. It helps us begin to understand what it means that the gospel is a gospel of the 'Kingdom of God'. And as I mentioned back in Snippet #1, it has been recognised by some American theologians (eg Schreiner, 2018:134; Mayhue 2012:67) that a lack of - and intentional rejection of - monarchy has meant that American theology has grown in a social cultural context of that rejection of monarchy which has not been helpful and has maybe contributed to a lack of a well developed theology of the Kingdom of God for Americans…because a Kingdom functions under a King. 

This has implications for the 'flavour' (or should we say 'lack of Kingdom flavour') of what comes out of the USA in terms of Christian literature (from devotional books to theological textbooks and commentaries and study-bibles), media, pastor's training and church teaching and focus and discipleship in general.

This then has further implications for what is taken around the world in missions as well….and often to countries and cultures where monarchy (in the form of 'chiefs') is part and parcel of society. This might mean that not only might such literature and teaching and media not bring a well formed biblical theology of Kingdom, (or might neglect it altogether), but it will also miss the opportunity of connecting gospel truth with concepts that such cultures already have embedded and ready to understand such transforming Kingdom gospel truths. But if such biblical Kingdom truths are not even brought or taught then such transformation of cultural kingdom concepts is omitted. 

Could this have something to do with the rise in celebrity and prosperity focused Christianity that has flooded Africa?…particularly in the years since WWII when Britain struggled to recover from the devastation of the war and didn't maybe send as many missionaries or pump out at much Christian literature and media. The USA church certainly filled a great part of that 'gap' and mission growth is said to have been rapidly from the USA side after the killing of the 5 missionary men (including Jim Elliot) in Ecuador in 1956 (see the movie End of the Spear for the story)…but without realising it, was there something in the way the gospel was brought and taught that unconsciously reflected more of the USA cultural system of governance, and cultural desire of achieved honour through celebrity and prosperity after rejecting ascribed honour through monarchical family?

MMMmmmm….food for thought!...

In conclusion...

We need someone 'bigger' than us and 'above' the politics and politicians that rule our world, who has wisdom, who has seen and knows more than we do, who is constant, unruffled and calm, and brings hope. 

Ultimately, this reminds us that above all we need God…we need God as our ultimate King, our King of Kings. We yearn for the One who is peace in the storm, who endures forever, who never changes even in changing times, who brings encouragement when we need it, who isn't leading just to please people and win votes, who feels like a loving head of a family, who keeps leaders in check, who keeps confidences etc etc. 

Queen Elizabeth allowed her Lord to use her for his glory, to shine through her to the world and give us just a tiny taste of some elements of the Kingly rule God is meant to have in our lives. She was an example of Jesus' light shining to a dark world and the world being attracted to that light…and in her earthly position God has given us a glimpse of all He wants to be for us as our King.  

But, she most of all, would say, that she was not the hope of the world, but rather she would want people to be pointed to the One who was the source of her hope, Jesus Christ…which on the one occasion of her Christmas speech each year when she was able to voice her opinion and views, she took the opportunity to constantly point people to Christ. She didn't (as I have often heard in Presidential speeches) report all that she has done and given to people, but wanted her people and the world to know God and what He has given us in Jesus Christ.

Let us not forget the life of Queen Elizabeth, let us not forget her example and her character, but also let us not forget Kingdom realities, what we can learn from understanding monarchical governance, and ultimately that people of this world need God in Christ as their King of Kings!