A Different Kind of Kingdom

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:4b-6)

Jesus Christ—the one who “made us to be a kingdom”—a kingdom, but what type of kingdom? What type of government operates in this place?

At first glance, we might say an “absolute monarchy” of course. Jesus is king. What Jesus says goes! That’s what it’s all about—autocracy—one king, one ruler, one way of doing things, one will which commands and all are forced to obey.

There are 2 problems with that, well actually 3. Firstly, what happens with the other 2 persons of the Trinity if Jesus is that kind of king? The very nature of our God is to be relational. The nature of God is not to have one part of God reigning absolutely over another; but that God, God’s self, is actively engaged in relationship all the time—and calls the people of God to be similarly engaged. The nature of God is not to be an absolute monarch—the Creation would have been a very different place if that were the case.

The second problem with the idea of absolute monarchy as the government of the kingdom is that we know that Jesus is not that kind of king! That kind of king does not make himself vulnerable to the vagaries of the world by giving up what he has and undergoing the kind of passion that Jesus undergoes. That kind of monarch does not enter the world of his subjects as an ordinary child, at the mercy of the will of others. That kind of monarch does not seek to persuade through love and mercy and openness and vulnerability, because only love and mercy and openness and vulnerability can bring about the type of kingdom that Jesus in on about. An absolute monarch rules absolutely and no dissent is permitted, because dissent and unrest are a threat to the reign. Jesus is not a king who is worried about such a threat to his reign.

The third problem we have with the idea of Jesus as an absolute monarch is that we know that we are not those kind of subjects. God did not create us to be automatons—robots to follow directives without any thoughts or initiative of our own. We are rebellious and dissenting and God does not bring us under control with water cannons and riot shields, but with invitation, and care, and love. No, the imagery of Jesus as absolute monarch is not the way to understand the kind of governance model operating in the kingdom made by Christ.

So, then is governance in the kingdom of Jesus democratic. Do we all get our say and the majority rules? Is it just what you or I think is good as long as we have the numbers? That idea doesn’t sound right either. Majority rule doesn’t guarantee that the reign of Christ is in place. We are a varied and disparate people. We are a stupid and wayward people. Democracy is a secular system of government that assumes that the collective opinion of people will give us the best possible governance result and perhaps that is true for nations of people (as long as popularism doesn’t hold sway), but it doesn’t help us to understand the kind of governance that operates under the reign of Christ.

Right now, you might be wondering why we would even want to persist with the question. Isn’t government in the kingdom of Christ some kind of future reality that really has no bearing on what we’re doing now? Isn’t it just an esoteric question—something akin to how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?

Well, no, the question of governance in the kingdom of Christ is a question of what we are called to be engaged in now as the foretaste of that kingdom which is the body of Christ, the church. And we only need to look around at our sister and brother Christians to be reminded that the church chooses to operate under a variety of human governance systems, because the question is not so much how we organise ourselves as what we think we’re engaged in as we do so.

Whether a particular part of the church chooses to operate under an episcopal system (a system of personal authority) or a conciliar system (a system of collective authority) or some kind of combination of both is not what is at stake here. What is at stake is, “How is it that Christ reigns in our hearts, our lives, our communities, our families?” And that has almost nothing to do with the question of who gets to vote! It has everything to do with what we think we are aiming to achieve.

In the Uniting Church’s Manual for Meetings (Section 1.1), we are reminded that “When a council of the church makes decisions, it is aiming to discern the guidance of the Spirit in response to the word of God.”

Our deliberation and decision-making as the people of God is never made in a vacuum, or from off-the-top-of-our-head how we are feeling now. Our deliberation and decision-making as the people of God is always done in the context of our understanding of who God is and who we are before God. In that, we are guided by our theological tradition—the church’s understanding of God and everything in relation to God. We are guided by good and deep reflection on that tradition in the light of “the inheritance of literary, historical and scientific enquiry which has characterised recent centuries” in the words of the Basis of Union Para. 11, i.e. in the light of our contemporary human experience also reflected upon deeply and critically.

When a council of the church makes decisions, it is aiming to discern the guidance of the Spirit in response to the word of God... [The Manual for Meetings continues] discernment is not something for which we can set down the rules.

But the processes we use to create community and communicate in our meetings can themselves assist in the discernment process. This will be enhanced if people come expecting to be open both to the Spirit and to each other. By creating and sustaining effective communications in the context of a Christian community, we will be more likely to discern the guidance of the Spirit and reflect this in our decision-making.

That is not to say that community should be ‘nice’ all the time. We will struggle through pain and difficulty together as well as experiencing the joy of open and honest communication, being unified in our brokenness and our common identity under God. When members are left hurt or the community is broken, poor decisions are likely to be made and the church has failed to be true community. (Manual for Meetings Section 1.1)

A professor of mine used to talk about this type of governance as “Christocracy”. It cannot be brought about by any particular kind of human system of governance. It can only be the product of the work of God amidst a people who earnestly and sincerely submit themselves to the task of seeking God’s will and not just the expression of their own desires. Its presence is not determined by whether you or I like the outcome of any particular deliberations or decisions. As the Manual for Meetings says: “In retrospect …some decisions are considered to have been visionary and innovative, others inappropriate and destructive, whether or not they were seen that way at the time.” (Section 1.1) Nor is the presence of the reign of Christ determined by whether you or I have had “our say”. The presence of the reign of Christ is signified in our midst by our willingness to participate in the process as determined by our church for the sake of the community of Christ, in pursuit of God’s will for our world, and under the promise of God’s reign. And that is what we are called to do today, as we meet as one of the councils of the Uniting Church, the Congregation.

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:4b-6)

Only God Builds God's House

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

And in the book of Ruth, God is intent on building a house, a particular kind of house of God’s own—not a building of stone or wood, or even a tent, but a people, a dynasty; and not a house of new and perfect pieces, but one of imperfect and mixed ancestry—not pure, not wholly of the chosen people, but chosen nevertheless. And the Gospel of Matthew understands the intent because it is that Gospel that carefully remembers the story, the dynastic line of the house of David, and of Jesus according to that Gospel—the dynastic line of Ruth, a foreigner, an alien, and a part of the family, the house of God.

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

Ruth is the foreign daughter-in-law of Naomi, widow of Elimelech of Bethlehem. Ruth is a widow too. All the men in the family have died. Naomi attempts to release Ruth from her commitments, to send her back to her family in Moab; but Ruth re-commits herself to Naomi, to Naomi’s people, and to the God of that people. But they are widows and they are on their own.

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

Financial independence for women at the time was rare, although not completely unheard of in the upper eschelons of society. Ruth and Naomi were not of that class. Generally then, women were required to be and needed to be under the protection of a male—a father, a husband, even an uncle would do. Not only that but women were generally not seen as independent people, they were always considered as someone's wife or mother or mother‑in‑law or daughter‑in‑law.  The worst position for a woman to be in was to be a widow with dependent children and no other family or at least no other family who would take seriously the role of the "go'el".

The "go'el" was the next of kin—the one who according to Jewish law was responsible for caring for the widows and the orphans. The responsibilities of the "go'el" even extended to marriage of the widow, if that was possible, and the procreation of children on behalf of the deceased husband in order that the family line might be continued. In a world where women and children were treated as possessions, it was the go'el's task to redeem these people just as one would redeem property which is in danger of being lost to someone else or lost altogether to the family.

Now at the beginning of the story of Ruth, the situation looks hopeless, Ruth and Naomi are on their own left to fend for themselves, a feat they do achieve rather well given their circumstances. But at the beginning of chapter 2, we read the fateful words "Now Naomi had a relative on her husband's side, from the clan of Elimelech, a man of standing, whose name was Boaz."  And here although the story doesn't say it yet, you must think with a Hebrew mind and say, "Ah, is Boaz the one who is supposed to take on the responsibilities of the go'el. If that is so, why hasn't it happened?  Sure, Naomi is old but the responsibility must be filled." And the intrigue begins and the story continues.

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

Ruth, relegated to the role of gleaning, of the picking up the leavings of the harvest, so that she and Naomi might live, determines to go to the fields and glean after the harvesters. Naomi suggests that she go to the fields of Boaz. Whilst in the fields, Boaz notices Ruth, discovers who she is, and offers her his protection. Via the threshing-room floor incident, Ruth and Naomi persuade Boaz to take on the role of the "go'el".

Eventually we discover that Boaz is not the closest kin of Naomi but that another person who is, has not performed the role of "go'el" either. Boaz takes on the task, marries Ruth a child is born. A Moabite women has been welded into the Hebrew people through the ancient and honourable tradition of the "go'el" even if the women had to do a bit of work to call their own family to task to achieve it.

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

So God builds an unusual dynasty of odds and sods to produce the great King, David, and to establish the Davidic line.

And the Gospel of Matthew understands it so well, when Ruth is included as one of only 4 women in the genealogy of Jesus.

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

And there’s a lot of labouring in vain observed by Jesus at the treasury—scribes parading looking for respect and places of honour; rich people making great shows of the money they give. But none of these attract his attention so much as the widow who contributes so little and yet so much out of her poverty, not out of abundance.

Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. (Ps. 127:1a)

And when you have so much that you think you’re building the kingdom of God on your own, you’re completely missing the point; but when you recognise that you like everyone else are in need of God’s love, God’s redemption, a proper Redeemer, a proper “go’el”, then you have been enfolded into that house of odds and sods, of lepers and the lost, that is really the household of God. Because it is not what we do or who we are, but what God sees in us, and the way in which God claims us that gives us life.