The question "who is king" concerns everyone because we feel, even if vaguely, that we do not find in ourselves the purpose of our existence, the answer to our ultimate desires, we do not have the whole truth. The question then arises: whom to believe? Sometimes: whom should we obey? At any rate: to whom to turn? Whom to trust? Who is reigning? What comes first in my life and satisfies me, gives life its meaning? The text of the Gospel we just read invites us to think about this question before Jesus. If we believe that Jesus is king, in what way is that true, and what does this mean in my life and my church?

I propose now to follow with John three lines, exploring and / or meditating on three simple questions:

• What? : the sort of king Jesus is not
• How? : how Jesus is King
• Who? : who says that Jesus is king? / and what is my expectation?

1 - The King Jesus is not.

Here we refer to verse 36 of the text. John reminds us that Jesus is not a warrior Messiah, come to rival the Roman Empire and establish his own Empire. Throughout the Gospels we see him thus: declining violence and discrimination, Jesus not only shows kindness to men, but even serves them; he welcomes the poor, the sick, strangers, children. He is the "good shepherd", his “yoke is easy”. Pitying the crowd, he dares not send 5,000 men home without eating for fear that they hunger on the way. No wonder then that on several occasions, the people, crushed by Roman authority, tried to make him king! Yet each time, Jesus slips away. Why? If Jesus had accepted the role of a "good" king, surely he would have ruled with wisdom and righteousness and done a lot of good for the people of that time. Even now, he would be a good king for us, upright, honest, and very effective: there is no doubt that he would find good solutions to the economic and environmental crisis! But Jesus refuses to be this sort of king. Why?

This is no light question... Dostoevsky makes this an important discussion topic in The Brothers Karamazov in the words of the Grand Inquisitor. He pictures Jesus returning amongst the men at the time of the Inquisition and being condemned by the church because he doesn’t know how to make people truly happy. The Grand Inquisitor reproaches him for not agreeing to be king: "By accepting the purple of Caesar, you would have founded a universal empire and given peace to the world!". So is Jesus refusing to make us happy?

2 – What kind of royalty are we talking about here?

Here we refer to verse 37 of the text. We sometimes say "Jesus is King in heaven." But what does that mean? Jesus is not just king in heaven, king "elsewhere", rather than being king on earth. The difference between earth and heaven is not that they are two different "places", but two different states, two different ways of being.

Jesus is not only a king who would be "very good"; he is not king in the way of the world because he refuses to exercise any power over man, even in the name of his own goodness or the immediate happiness of man. Jesus is not violent, even in the name of Justice, a temptation to which many political regimes and religious institutions yield. Dostoyevsky reminds us that it is a temptation that Jesus had in the desert: to give bread to everyone, to show his power and have himself worshipped. I think that's something that corresponded to the expectations of certain men of the Old Testament and of the world of Jesus: that God would restore justice for the poor by destroying the wicked. However, in this sense there is no Christian kingdom in perspective. I think this passage has very strong theological implications: God chooses to bear with the wicked rather than punishing them, because he loves all men, "he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good" (Matthew 5). Are we willing to accept a patient God, a God who wants justice but refuses to be a judge? A God who prefers the conversion of sinners to their destruction? And we do we expect God to intervene in favour of justice or do are we willing to work ourselves to bring about justice? And how: by force or by mutual aid and compassion?

Yes, it can be costly for us that Jesus is not king in this world. Jesus does not necessarily give us bread, defend us against our enemies, appear to us with authority. In the world, Jesus does not impose his laws, even his law of love, but he comes to testify to the truth. He invites us to free recognition and free commitment to the love of which he testifies. In John, the problem of recognition is central, and it’s in him that the salvation and justice are to be found: Do we believe that in seeing Jesus, we see the Father? That God is like Jesus? Or are we waiting for another king? Another God, who will fight more? Who is more "effective"?

3 – What are my expectations?

From this point of view Jesus can disturb us. "Why did you come to upset us? Because you know you upset us," are the words that Dostoevsky puts into the mouth of the Grand Inquisitor. Jesus is a God, who disturbs people, because, refusing all authority, he urges men to examine themselves, to act themselves. Here we refer to verses 33 to 35. Pilate is evasive. He returns Jesus’ questions or he simply doesn’t reply when Jesus invites him to make a personal decision about him. And we, what kind of decisions do we make? Do we say for ourselves that Jesus is king, or is it because others say it for us? Is Jesus a king, given to me by the teaching of the church, or do I choose every day to express his kingship by putting him at the centre of my life in my life?

How can I put Jesus at the centre of my life: Am I willing to give up my own power and my own kingship (e.g. earn a good living, exercise influence over others)? Am I willing to give up making myself the centre and purpose of my life? My comfort, my security, my peace, my habits, my happiness are, of course, not bad things as such, but the question we should ask ourselves is: What is the most important thing? What in my life, currently prevents Jesus from being King and keeps me from making decisions for him?

Everyone wonders whom to believe, whom to obey, whom to trust, who will satisfy us? i.e. who can make us happy? But everything depends on the happiness we desire - the sort that our society proposes: to relax, eat well and be entertained? Then a Roman Emperor could well be our king. Or do we want the happiness that consists of living in love, love understood not as our heart’s inclinations, but as a strong desire to do good?

A final word about our churches...

The Church then is not the beginnings of a "Christian regime", even a spiritual one, people who are right (with people who are more or less right). If so Jesus would have made it on his own. The Church is all men who set off with Jesus at their head and at the centre of their lives. To love God and work for good, inviting other people to recognize the source of this love is what makes the crown of Jesus, that's also what makes for unity, not getting our doctrines and our practices agreed. The unity of the Church is all those who bear witness to the truth by conforming their actions and commitments to follow Christ, the Church is nothing more and nothing less than the assembly of all those who live for the same king. Where then is my living commitment?