Royal baby blues?
Believing what we do, Christians are often impelled to speak out against the cultures we live in. Other times we just seem to do it anyway, possibly out of habit.
I've been thinking about this as royal baby mania and royal baby apathy/antipathy conduct a rather strange and pointless battle across the Internet. Some Christians have felt the need to highlight that this baby is not, in fact, the Ruler of the Universe come to earth, Jesus Christ:
“@RevKevDeYoung: Remember when the Royal Baby was born? No media. No worldwide fanfare. Not even a bed. But heaven knew. And sang.”
“@PastorMark: For those excited about the birth of a royal baby I have good news: a Royal Baby was born a long time ago in Bethlehem, our King of kings.”
I've been reading the letter to the Hebrews in the Bible, which could summarised by the equation, “Jesus > everything”. But being reminded of how mind-blowingly true this is doesn't make me any more inclined to join in with the “Let's be clear who is really royal” commenters. If anything, it makes me more antagonistic towards them because Jesus doesn't need that kind of press. It makes Him seem in competition, when in fact He is supreme over everything.
Of course there are times when God makes clear His triumph over presumptuous others (e.g. Isaiah 44:6-20) but that's not what's going on here. The people going crazy about this baby aren’t doing so because they think he might be like Jesus. They're not looking for the baby to save them - though no doubt he, like all unformed personalities, has to bear the weight of expectation of what he could be - they just want to celebrate life, and do so with other people. Churches are communities that do this all the time and they care especially about children because that’s what Jesus did. This is part of His wonder, that He saw His creation not as a thing to be shouted at, but as in desperate need of His loving rescue. Why not tell that story? Or, if you want to complain, why not talk about the Giver of all life not being given thanks?