One of the most traumatic times in British history, certainly in early modern British history, were the Civil Wars that were fought in the British Isles in the mid- 17^th Century. And although those wars raged on into the 1650s, I don’t think there can be any doubt that, certainly in England, the most famous, or perhaps infamous, event of those wars was the execution of King Charles I in January 1649.  

I think perhaps in many people’s understanding, those Civil Wars were wars of religion, but that’s not really the whole story. Religious differences between the opposing parties did play a part in the Civil Wars but they were fought for political and economic reasons too. And if we had to choose one primary cause for those Wars, it would almost certainly be politics, essentially, the question of who had ultimate authority in the country, the king or parliament. And central to this argument was Charles’ firm, one might almost say fanatical, belief in the Divine Right of Kings. That, as an anointed king, Charles’ authority came directly from God and therefore he was answerable to no earthly authority and was free to act and to rule as he saw fit. And in the end it was Charles’ intransigence on this issue, his unwillingness to compromise and come to terms, even after he’d lost the war in military terms, that led to his downfall and to him losing both his crown and his head.  

I think that, for most people today, Charles’ belief in the Divine Right of Kings, let alone his fanaticism about it, would seem quite absurd and even frightening because it is a form of religious fanaticism. To all intents and purposes, it’s like saying, “I am God’s anointed one so I can do anything I like.” And we know only too well how dangerous that can be. But from a Christian point of view we should view it, and anything like it, with deep suspicion too. And if that makes me sound like a 17^th Century Parliamentary Puritan, so be it; I say it anyway because we know that there is only one divinely appointed King and it’s the one whose kingship we celebrate today, Christ the King.  

As Christians we know that Christ’s kingship is divinely ordained because he told us so himself and, as Christians, we believe his words to be true. And among the very last words he spoke to his disciples before his Ascension were, 

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” 

And who can give such authority but God the Father? And as Christians we must know that, and recognise Christ’s divinely appointed kingship.  

So why is it then that we so often treat Christ as though he was Charles I and we were his parliamentary adversaries? Because we do. We do it regularly and we do it in so many ways. We do it every time we disobey his commandments and think it doesn’t matter. We do it every time we twist his words to make them fit with our own ideas about how things are or should be.  

I could give you many examples, but I’ll just mention a couple. I well remember speaking to some Church members about the problem of what to do about people who act in ways that are not only contrary to Christ’s teaching but do a great deal of harm to the Church and the faith into the bargain. And one of them said they should be kicked out of the Church. They should be thrown out, and they should never be allowed to come back again. So I asked where penance and forgiveness fitted into that way of thinking. And the answer I got was, accompanied by the thump of a fist on a table,  

“Some things are unforgivable” 

True. But Christ said the only unforgivable sin is a sin against the Spirit. We were talking about sins of the flesh (let the reader or hearer understand). And in those circumstances, didn’t Christ refuse to condemn but only instruct to “Go, and sin no more”? And when people, Church people, Christians who acclaim Christ as their divinely appointed King, get on their moral high horses like this, what are they doing other than denying his kingly authority over all things by usurping his kingly authority as judge? ‘It doesn’t matter what Christ said, we’ll decide who can be forgiven and who can’t’. 

Another very common way in which people in the Church deny Christ’s kingly authority is by twisting his words so that Christ says what they think he should have said and want him to have said. And one of the most common ways they do this is in relation to the words Christ used at the Last Supper.  

The first, that is the earliest, record we have of the Last Supper, and the institution of the Eucharist, isn’t in the Gospels but in St Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. And St Paul says this: 

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  

St Paul says that this is the teaching he received. We think 1 Corinthians was written sometime between 53 and 55 AD, so the argument that a belief in the Real Presence, that the bread and wine in the sacrament of Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ, is a medieval invention of the Catholic Church is blown out if the water immediately. It isn’t. It’s been the belief and teaching of the Church from the very beginning. But of course, some people still argue about the meaning of Christ’s words. Even though scripture clearly states that Christ said the bread and the wine is his body and blood, some people, many people in fact, say that’s not what he really meant. They say that what he really meant was that the bread and wine signify or symbolise his body and blood. But that argument doesn’t really hold water either.  

The New Testament was originally written in Greek and in Greek the words for ‘is’, ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’ are all different (estin, semeion and parabole actually). And the Greek word estin means exactly the same as the English word ‘is’, it’s a verb that expresses a state of being. So when people argue about this, surely what it amounts to is a challenge to Christ’s kingly authority over his Church expressed in this way: 

‘Christ said this is my body, this is my blood, but we say, no he didn’t. Or if he did, that’s not what he meant.’ 

On whose authority do people change Christ’s words, or the meaning of his words? On whose authority do people change Christ’s teaching? Christ has divinely appointed kingly authority over all things, so on whose authority do people usurp Christ’s kingly authority over anything?   

Those are just two of many examples of the ways in which people in the Church, Christians who acclaim Christ as their King, then both deny and usurp his kingly authority. And what are we doing when we do this? We call the Church the Body of Christ, and we say that Christ is the head of the body. So when we deny and usurp his authority, his headship of the Church, to all intents and purposes, aren’t we’re cutting the head off Christ’s body? In 1649, the agents of Parliament cut the head off a king, and took his authority for themselves, in large part because he claimed to be a divinely appointed king. How often have we and do we cut the head off the body of our King, a King whom we know has been divinely appointed, so that we can take his authority for ourselves?  

Next Sunday is Advent Sunday. It’s the start of a new Church year and the time of year when we look forward to the two comings of Christ. We look forward to Christmas and our celebration of Christ’s first coming into the world at his Incarnation and we look forward too, to his return, his second coming, when he will come again in all his glory. But we must never forget that when Christ does return in glory he will come as our judge. So Advent is a time too when we’re called to make ready and to be ready for Christ’s return.  It’s a time when we have to think about how Christ will judge us.  

After the Restoration of the Monarchy in this country in 1660, those who were considered regicides, those who’d played an active role in the execution of Charles I, had to face the wrath of his son, Charles II. Some were executed, some were imprisoned for life, some manged to escape the new king’s vengeance by fleeing overseas. A few were even exhumed and were posthumously executed, beheaded themselves in spite of the fact that they were already dead! When Christ returns, there will be nowhere to flee to escape his judgement and justice so we will have no option other than to stand before him, face the music, and get what’s coming to us. We all hope and pray that Christ won’t judge us too harshly and that we’ll receive the eternal reward promised to all those faithful subjects who’ve done their best to be loyal to our divinely appointed King. But what will be the justice meted out to us if we’ve been amongst those who’ve cut off the head of our King so that we can take his authority for ourselves?   

Amen.  

---

Propers for Christ the King, Sunday 23rd November 2025

Entrance Antiphon 

How worthy is the Lamb who was slain, 
to receive power and divinity, 
and wisdom and strength and honour. 
To him belong glory and power for ever and ever. 

The Collect 

Almighty ever-living God, 
whose will is to restore all things in your beloved Son,  

the King of the universe, 
grant, we pray, 
that the whole creation, set free from slavery, 
may render your majesty service, 
and ceaselessly proclaim your praise. 
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, 
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, 
God, for ever and ever. 

Amen. 

The Readings 

2 Samuel 5:1-3  

Psalm 122:1-2, 4-5 

Colossians 1:12-20 

Luke 23:35-43 

Prayer after Communion  

Having received the food of immortality, 
we ask, O Lord, 
that, glorying in obedience to the commands of Christ, the King of the universe, 
we may live with him eternally in his heavenly Kingdom. 
Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.  

Amen.