The adage goes, "for God so loved the world that he didn't send a committee". We might add to that, "For God so loved the world that he didn't form a democracy."

     Now, that might seem an odd comment, to those of us who were born into, and are committed to a country that is thought of as a democracy. Granted, a democratic form of government has it's benefits. Granted, there are many in the world who not only desire to come to and live in a democracy, but who would give their last coin to get here. As a form of government, a democracy--or more accurately, a republic has it's advantages over all other forms of earthly governing. In fact, we might say there is no other form of government that surpasses a democracy or a republic, wherein individuals bind themselves together for the common good and choose representative leaders who reflect their ideals, their values, their wants and desires. As an earthly form of government it works as well, or better than any other. Why then did God not form the church, as a democracy? Why, instead, did God initiate, not a democracy, but a kingdom? Because in a democracy, people are always politicking. Because in a democracy, people are always working to get their agenda accepted and adopted. Because in a democracy, majority rules, no matter what. And from our recent elections, with the ceaseless TV commercials and media commentaries and flawed exit polling--we can see and understand why it is true, that God, in his love for us, and in His great wisdom--knew what was best for us in inaugurating, not in the Church, a democracy--but a kingdom!

     Of course, there are those who would claim that all that kingdom language is simply a product of the world-view of those who wrote the books of the Bible. In our denomination today, as in most of the mainline protestant denominations, revisionists are hard at work trying to eliminate, we might go so far as to say "cleanse" the Scriptures of any reference to God's kingship, or the reign of Christ, as King. First, because as you know, a king is a male--and right there the reasoning goes, you've offended, and "turned off" some folks. But second, the reasoning goes, because thinking of God as king suggests a kind of absolute power and authority that we democratic, non-hierarchical, egalitarian Americans just aren't supposed to be comfortable with. So, many in our denomination would just as soon "purify" the Bible of all that antiquated kingdom language and imagery--and while they're at it, they'd just as soon get rid of all that in hymnody as well. The Renewing Worship materials of the ELCA, for example, would have us replace "All Creatures of our God and King", with "All Creatures of our God Most High". So that what we end up with is not a king, but a kind of mild-mannered, friendly divine being who serves as our God politely, yet necessarily without wielding much heavy handed power or authority over us. And isn't that pretty much the God who's being offered in most of so-called mainline protestant Christianity? A God who is not King; a God who doesn't require or expect much of us. A God who doesn't rule. In the words of the Jesus seminar--the group of scholars who pick apart the bible and claim they know what and who Jesus really is--in the words of the Jesus seminar, Jesus is in no way, "Christ, the King"--he is Jesus, the middle-eastern wise sage. And that says it all. Some in our world today would very much like to reduce Jesus, and the Triune God, to being simply a wise sage that offers to us proverbs and teachings that make sense, that are helpful, and that we may pick and choose between as we will. And many are re-writing the Bible, and hymns and church doctrine, to support that image of God. And it can happen because in our denomination, as in so many denominations--folks want to see the Church of Jesus Christ, as a democracy--not a Kingdom. Which, for the orthodox Lutheran, ought to make our flesh crawl--because we will not so easily dismiss Biblical teaching. Because we will not so easily ignore the fact that throughout the Holy Scriptures, one with eyes of faith can see that what God is inaugurating is not a democracy, but a Kingdom! And while we are alive on this earth, Christ is to be our King!

     Our readings for this morning make that abundantly clear. Our first lesson from Jeremiah is one that is often used to suggest God's Lordship over us is not one of kingship, but one of shepherding. We like to think of Jesus as our Good Shepherd, because we have this romanticized, softly textured image of what a shepherd is really like. But in fact, in Israel, where sheep and shepherds were common and familiar, the idea of God raising up a new, faithful shepherd for Israel, from the lineage of David was anything but our mis-directed notion of the Good Shepherd. Because shepherds in Israel's time were hard, and stern, and fearless. Good Shepherds guarded their sheep with a staff, that was used both to ward off wolves and other predators, as well as to beat their sheep in the rear-end when they were going in the wrong direction. Israel's kings had long been described in Scripture, as shepherds--but more often than not, as false shepherds--as shepherds who destroyed and scattered the sheep, not attending to them. The role of the good shepherd was to lead the sheep, and guide them in the right path--not to let them stray all over the place. The good shepherd was to direct and corral the sheep--and when they were going astray, to bring them back to the fold, literally, by hook or by crook--the crook of the shepherd's staff, that is. And when God had gotten fed up with the evil shepherd kings of Israel, he promised them a new kind of shepherd--one that would still be King--but one that would take his kingship seriously--to reign as king wisely, to execute God's, not man's justice and righteousness in the land. And this shepherd/king was to be Christ--and Christ was to be this shepherd/king. And it wasn't an accident, or a mis-understanding, or a culturally conditioned context that caused Jeremiah to speak of the coming King in this way. This is how God had presented the kings of Israel. This is how God had established the leaders of Israel--to be kings--to be the forerunners of the one true King who would finally be sent--Christ--the King! And is that very King we see, in our gospel lesson, nailed to a cross, which became His throne.

     To get around the notion of the kingdom of God, and the reality of Christ being King, you would have to ignore or eliminate a lot of passages from the bible, not the least of which would be this one, where Christ is proclaimed King, by the Jewish establishment and the Roman soldiers, albeit unwittingly, as well as by one of the thieves crucified with Jesus on Golgotha. The message of the gospels is that the hapless political and religious leaders spoke the truth about Jesus, even when they were attempting to make fun of him. The soldiers put an inscription over Jesus that said, "This is the King of the Jews". They mocked him as they said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself!" The religious leaders who stood by said, "He saved others, let him save himself if he is the Messiah--the one chosen by God--chosen to be, the new Shepherd-King of Israel!" And all the while they were railing at him, and scoffing at him, little did they realize that in his death on the cross, God was confirming Jesus, King. The cross was, literally, Christ's throne. And his kingship, confirmed not by the Jewish religious establishment, nor by the Roman authorities--was confirmed finally by the dying words of one who had been condemned, himself. Oddly enough in this account, it is the crucified thief who acknowledges and establishes Jesus' true kingship, as he cries out to His King, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!" And the witness of Saint Luke to these events, is meant to leave you and me, with a similar dilemma--will we, like the Jewish leaders, the Roman soldiers, and the unbelieving thief, deny and deride Jesus' kingship--preferring instead, our own power and authority? Or will we be the thief, the sinner on the other cross, acknowledging Jesus' Lordship over us, acknowledging Christ as our King, pleading, simply--"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"?

     To say that the Church is not a kingdom, but a democracy, would be to say that by majority vote, the majority rules, which would be to say that we have authority over, Christ, our King--suggesting that we can vote on when we will and will not, submit to the power, authority and truth declared by Christ the King. But to acknowledge Christ as our King, is to accept the fact that the Church is not a democracy, but a monarchy, or rather, a theocracy. Which means we submit to Christ the King--that we submit, not just to get a piece of paradise, along with the thief on the cross. It means we submit now, and from here on out. Martin Luther, as he wrote on the Lord's Prayer, where we pray, "Thy kingdom come", says, "Many who pray the Lord's Prayer make the mistake of thinking only about their eternal happiness--they understand the kingdom of God to mean nothing but joy and pleasure in heaven. Thinking from an earthly, physical perspective, they only seek the benefit and advantage of heaven. They don't realize that life in God's kingdom is nothing but--even in this life, godliness, chastity, purity, gentleness, tenderness, and kindness. His kingdom is full of every virtue and grace. They don't know that God must have his way and that He alone must live and reign in us. We are saved only when God reigns in us, and we become, here on earth, his kingdom."

     To say Christ is the King, is one thing--to live with Christ as our King, is quite another. Which is why we celebrate this festival of Christ the King--that we may again, submit ourselves to Christ's Kingship and dominion and rule--over us and our lives. May Jesus Christ be our King--and may He reign in us, and may we be, here on earth, his kingdom!

     In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.