One of the favorite habits of the English news media is to follow the activities of the Royal Family. Certainly things have been fairly quiet of late, but in the last decade, the sons and their wives have more than earned their keep in the soap opera show to end all soaps! And in so doing, what little authority and privilege of the crown rights that the Queen still has are barely maintained. Now, just exactly what are crown rights you may ask? Crown rights traditionally have been the rights of the national or tribal sovereign. Crown rights hearken back to the old days when kings were kings and peasants were still peasants. You see, only in America do the peasants have both pick-up trucks and hunting rifles, that's what makes them red necks! That makes a difference don't you know, since they have both transport and a means of self defense.

Crown rights were the royal prerogatives of the national Sovereign, whether that person be King or Queen! In many times and places these rights entitled the ruler to ownership of the nation itself and the right to collect rent for every home, business and farm. Under the rule of kings, taxes were levied upon the whims and supposed needs of the ruler. There were head taxes, herd taxes, glass window taxes and hearth taxes. In merry old England, the glass window taxes gave rise to the very first tax loophole. One king was persuaded that the poor should be allowed at least a four inch square window tax free. Graciously the crown agreed. Very quickly every carpenter in the realm was busy making four inch square frames and putting them together in horizontal and vertical series to escape the glass tax. If you have ever seen what are called English Tudor homes with the miniature glass window frames you can now appreciate why the added expense of all that framing was affordable. Those windows were tax exempt!

The hearth tax was the tax placed upon the firebox in the chimney. The larger the home, the more fireplaces that were needed to heat it, and the more fireplaces the heavier the tax bite. Only the rich could afford to own several hearths, most people crowded their families into two or three room cottages with only one fireplace. Out in California, the energy conscious are beginning to wonder if people should be discouraged from having a second freezer or refrigerator in their garage! Rush Limbaugh had a hay day over that issue just last week! Conspicuous consumption others might call it.

Now kingship and crown rights have long since disappeared from American shores. And for those couple hundred years we have become accustomed to a defensive government more concerned about how much of our wealth we can be persuaded to give to the government. Notice the radical American notion of "our wealth" in that last statement! This assumption colors our thoughts and even to a limited extent our theology. Thus, there is no wonder at the utter amazement on the part of wealthy "peasants" in this country that increased property taxes on the value of our homes should even be proposed, let alone seriously considered in our time!

But, what we fail to realize is that the emerging nobility in this land have determined some time ago that questions of taxation should no longer revolve around how much we can be persuaded to share. No: the new view is a carefree evaluation of how much we should be allowed to keep of the hard won earnings that belong not to the worker, but to the state. That is the emerging nature of the attack upon our "antiquated" thoughts about capital, property and wealth. Do you feel that attack personally? If you do, perhaps you are now in the right mood to consider some theological implications of the American middle "peasant" mind set?

A story is told of Queen Elizabeth the first. Within her court was a fine upstanding Dandy, who continually primped and polished himself before her highness. One day after a rain, they went for a walk. They came to a curb, a gutter and a street to cross. It would have been unseemly for her majesty to have gotten her shoes soiled in the open gutter. We will not dwell on the nature of Elizabethan gutters, not their contents! However, as Elizabeth looked at Sir Walter Raleigh, he realized that his brand new expensive coat would probably suffice to protect his monarch's shoes, so as the classic tale goes, he gallantly laid his coat in the mucky stream to give her a dry place to trod.

We may presume that he did so freely and without compulsion because he understood the nature of the relationship between himself and the Crown. As we consider our passage in Mark today, it is this relationship and the crown rights of King Jesus that we should attempt to comprehend and understand. American and even some common British commentators have misunderstood this passage for several decades, if not longer. William Barclay and others suppose that the phrase about the colt "The Lord has need of it" are only some prior arranged code. They fail to see the Royal prerogatives of our King of Kings who by sovereign rights may order up transport at His hour of need.

The people of Jesus' time also have no republican or democratic tradition to keep them from welcoming their sovereign with doffed cloaks and palm branches strewn in the path of the donkey upon which He rode. In fact he was given a Royal welcome by the millions in Jerusalem during that first Easter season. "Hosanna!" the crowd cried as they welcomed their King. Usually we interpret that word as praise, but it may equally be translated "Save Now". Politically that phrase was the heartfelt desire of every Jew in the troubled climate of the first century.

Of course we well know how enthusiastic crowds can welcome a new candidate to office and a few short months later hardly any of his electorate can be found to admit they voted for the politician of last fall's moment! Why should we be surprised at the Jerusalem crowd who were just as fickle as we are? But more importantly we, like that same crowd should be extremely careful to gauge the sovereign crown rights of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you read further in this chapter this afternoon you will see the Royal prerogatives of King Jesus exercised ever more clearly. He went into His house, the Temple and cleaned out the greedy riff-raff.

The next day, the disciples noticed the withered unproductive fig tree. During holy week, Jesus' authority was questioned again and again. And when he was taken before Pilate in chapter fifteen of Mark, the most important question of that Roman mind was simple: "Are you the king of the Jews?" What did Jesus answer, do you remember? "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. That was the only question for which Mark records an answer. Yes, Jesus Christ would admit to being a Sovereign King. And a sign to that effect was nailed to the same cross on which he hung and died. Very many in Jerusalem did not notice and did not care!

But, a few did. These were the ones who would in three days time accept Him as King and Lord. That acceptance became a life-changing commitment. A commitment that was so invigorating that others were attracted to their fellowship and their devotion to King Jesus. We as citizens of His eternal Kingdom gather today in His presence to give Him worship, praise and devotion. For us as Americans this is a foreign way of thinking. "King Jesus" just does not roll off of the tongue too easily. Now I realize that some considered by many to be extremists in our land do indeed use that term.

And while we by choice to seek to maintain a somewhat middle of the road theological perspective here in this congregation and in our Presbytery as a whole, we have to realize that the world has changed so much that we are already crazy extremists on the fringe of American society. I was surprised a decade ago when one of the leading conservative Republicans in our county told me that no one should be expected to be as extreme as I was considered! Another fellow teacher once complained that I had become drastically radical. I do not think so! As I explained, to that closet liberal, she was like a cloud that asked the mountain why it was going the opposite direction of the wind that carried her along.

I went on to explain that my father and I had always modeled our thinking on the Westminster perspective and had some consistency of thought and action for most of the last century! By comparison to any who hold to sound doctrines and exemplary behavior, the transient worldly must indeed be confused at why we do not want to ride on their vainglorious bus headed down highway 666! So if the world intends to consider us as subjects of an otherworldly king - King Jesus, so let them view us. We are better off under His sovereign rule than willing participants in the democratic urge to race headlong into the infernal regions, where free will would by natural impulses truly take us.

But our King was crucified and His material kingdom is minimal indeed in our time. His properties have been captured and looted by nominal liberal atheists. And not only must the newer younger truer churches rebuild an ecclesiastical infrastructure, but guard it carefully from closet liberals who would liberate our spiritual realm from the true rule of our sovereign King Jesus. Will we accept Him as King? Will we accept Him as Lord and place ourselves, our fortunes and our reputations at His disposal? You must know that He has the authority to command, but like the English Sovereign who waited for her proud escort to offer his new coat, He waits for us to offer Him our hearts. Will you give your heart to Him today and always? Amen.