Thoughts on the Kingdom and the "Kin-dom"

 Tim Woodcock writes: It has been only been ten days since King Charles III was crowned. As a Brit, people have asked me about it multiple times since then. Do I like Charles? Am I a fan of the royal family? Does the pomp and circumstance of the occasion make me glow with pride?

My thoughts and feelings on this are so complex and contradictory that trying to write a coherent response seems impossible. So instead here are some impressionist bullet points, firstly on the British royal family, and secondly on the idea of kingship plays in the modern church.

•         The verb is “crowned,” people! It is not as I heard it on a reputable news source, NPR, recently – “coronated.”
  
  
•          King Charles – not very inspiring, is he? I suppose you can say he will grow into the role and it’s simply impossible to please everyone as a monarch, especially as a monarch in the modern world. Queen Elizabeth II’s stature as a dignified, fair-minded, and beloved queen grew incrementally over the decades. She was truly one of a kind. So let’s get real here: Charles is not going to match his mother in stature nor does he have decades left to live.
  
  
•         William and Kate. Harry and Meghan. A feud of incredible proportions. These people are said to be role models but I think the idea that we should look up to people who are so morally questionable, simply because they are “royal,” is absurd.
  
  
•          Personally, I think Britain needs some of sort of written constitution that establishes people’s rights as citizens. Officially a British is not a citizen of his or her country (as an American is a citizen of his or her country) but is instead in considered “a subject.” The antiquated idea of a king/queen ruling over his/her subjects needs to be snuffed out.
  
  
•        I like to joke that I am a republican when in Britain – that is I would rather do without royalty as the head of state – but I am most definitely not a Republican in the United States. But I’m pragmatic; there are some persuasive reasons for holding onto the royal family as an institution. Rather than abolishing it outright, I could get behind the notion of a massively reduced royal household (of the kind they have in Denmark, for instance). But in the modern world, it is indefensible to keep propping up a system that encourages extreme inequality and is explicitly designed to perpetuate inequality over multiple generations, using bogus arguments about aristocratic lineage.
  
  
  
  
            
•  In progressive churches, such as Second Presbyterian, there is a growing discomfort with imperialism and, as a solution of sorts, the phrase “the kin-dom of God” is sometimes used in our prayers and liturgy.
  
  
•        To me, it’s a really klutzy and problematic phrase – one that I doubt will have much currency 20 years from now. So the word “kin-dom” rubs me up the wrong way, but it’s the awkward neologism – the fact that is is a made-up word – rather than the concept behind it that I am inclined to push back against. Why? A pun is about the least logical way you have join two ideas together. Isn’t “family” essentially the same concept as the neologism “kin-dom”? Being part of the Christian family is a far more beautiful metaphor and it’s one that is grounded in the Bible.
  
  
•         The phrase “Christ the King” makes me think of a various stained-glass windows I’ve seen conveying that concept: Jesus on the throne, benevolent but stern. The light forcefully flooding through him into our lives.
  
  
•          It also reminds me of one of C.S. Lewis’ most successful images in his Narnia books: That unsettling conviction that Aslan is coming, and there will be a reversal. Exactly when and how Aslan will come is a mystery throughout the Narnia books, but things will change. “Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight, At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more, When he bares his teeth, winter meets its death, And when he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again.”
  
  
•           If you make a commitment to live as a Christian, you are trying to live your life subject to the will of your king, Christ the King.
  
  
•          If you make a commitment to live as a Christian, it’s not about “pie in the sky when you die.” Not at all. It’s about building the “peaceable kingdom” here on Earth as the King James version of the Bible puts it. It is about working with others to build the “beloved community” as Martin Luther King Jr. puts it: nonviolence as a way of life, working for justice and peace for all of humanity. It is about finding ways to allow the “kin-dom of God” to break into the world, as contemporary theology would put it.
  
  
•          Allegiance to a “kin-dom” and a “kingdom” are very different things. In the 21^st century, the idea of kingship is problematic for sure, but I don’t think that means we should rush to discard the word “king” nor should we be embarrassed by it, given its historical weight. I’d like to propose you can have dual citizenship – you can be a citizen in the “kin-dom of God,” with your eyes on the world around you, endeavoring to better it along with your fellow humans, and you can be a “subject in the kingdom of God.” We can be in both realms at the same time.