Given the relatively obsolete nature of kings and monarchs in our contemporary world—and considering the less than exemplary conduct of some of the few who remain—we might wonder about retaining this annual feast honoring Christ the King. But perhaps an even greater problem with this title and all it signifies, is our modern western overvaluation of individual rights and freedom—even when these are at the expense of the good of others. Freedom, superficially understood as choosing to do what I wish, is obviously incompatible with subjecting oneself to the wishes of some ultimate authority figure seen as encroaching upon my freedom and thereby threatening my personal happiness.
These objections to subjecting oneself to another—be that a king or some other authority—seem to be valid ones in the light of Jesus’ description of those who submit to his reign. For Jesus enunciates a whole catalog of services to a neighbor in need that seem to demand a life-changing self-forgetfulness and the curtailment of one’s own needs, desires, and preferences. This impression is often confirmed in the lives of saints who are known to have totally spent themselves in loving service and care of those in need—frequently at great cost to themselves. To the modern mind this seems like a recipe for misery and the loss of one’s freedom and right to simple happiness, enjoyment, and the pleasures of life.
All of this is somewhat ironic, given the fact that modern philosophical and psychological thought question the very notion of free will and, indeed, some argue in favor of various forms of determinism—physical, psychological, and social—and believe that the notion of free choice is thus an illusion. Christian thinking would support the latter view that what many consider free choice is an illusion—at least until it is liberated from that inner determinism of the heart enslaved to sin and the tyranny of self-will and its socially-isolating self-absorption. This demonic caricature of true freedom leads—as it has for the demons—not to happiness and contentment but, ultimately, to utter misery, loneliness, and despair.
In contrast, those who are willing to surrender this false (and destructive) “freedom,” and submit to the gentle yoke and the loving reign of Christ the Shepherd-King, by denying their own selfish wants and desires, in favor of the real needs of others, paradoxically, begin to experience something of true freedom as their hearts are freed from their enslaving self-centered, inward-looking wants and desires. No longer driven by these compulsive desires, and drawing inspiration and strength from their King (who likewise came not to be served, but to serve), they discover that Christ the King comes to establish true freedom in the hearts of those who submit to his reign. Only in this way will they finally truly reign over their own hearts, as they reclaim that glorious inner liberty God intended in creating creatures in his own image and likeness. And so the paradox: Freedom coming to its fullness in a loving and liberating submission to the one who himself submitted (in trust) to his heavenly Father who, in turn, crowned him with glory and honor, by seating him at his right hand in his Eternal Kingdom. So, perhaps the image of a King is not an inappropriate one, and one that may actually aptly point the way to what will eternally fulfill the deepest longings and desires of our burdened, enslaved, and suffering hearts.