Sharing the Savior’s Story

Twisted Logic

James I, king of England—there are quite a few Christians who don't know a smidge of English history, but still know the name of James I. He is, after all, the monarch who was responsible for the translation of the Bible that bears his name. If he had done nothing else, for this reason alone, King James would be immortalized. But James the 1st is remembered for other reasons, too. James, you see, was a double monarch. Not only was he James I, king of England, he was also James VI, king of Scotland. Wearing two crowns could easily be, for anyone, a most heady station. Maybe that's why James advocated a doctrine called “The Divine Right of Kings.” Very simply, James' position was all kings, well, at least Christian kings, were kings because God had divinely designated them to be rulers.

Now, that's OK for the most part. But, where James' logic went from there is where the ice got thin. James figured, “If God is behind me, then He is also behind my decisions. If God is behind my decisions, then if somebody doesn’t like me or what I've done or what I’ve said or the laws I’ve enacted, then they’re really not criticizing me, they’re criticizing God. To criticize God is a very bad thing, indeed.” Now, that kind of thinking didn't make James the most popular kid on the block. Because of this “Divine Right of Kings” thing, James was disliked by a lot of common folk.

Goodness, I’m guessing James was disliked just as much by many of the uncommon folk. I'm almost absolutely positive that James was disliked by William Murray. William Murray? Who is William Murray? I’ll get to William in a minute. First, let me tell you a little more about the way James thought. James figured that since God wanted him to be king, God also wanted his son, who was named Charles to be the future king. If God wanted James to be respected, He also wanted Charles to be respected. If James was right, Charles should be right. This caused a problem. James didn't want his son to be a jerk and wanted to raise him right, but he also didn't want any commoner disciplining his boy, the future king.

That's where William Murray came in. Since it was improper for a lowly teacher to punish Charles, they brought in a princely playmate to be smacked in the place of His Royal Highness. When Prince Charles got overly silly, sassy, or lazy, William got smacked. I imagine the conversation went something like this: “Charles, you've been a very, very bad prince. You need to be punished. William Murray, come here.” Then there would be a series of whacks, or time outs, or whatever punishment was in vogue in the 1600s. William got clobbered for Charles' mistakes. When it was all over, the tutor would turn from William, the whipping boy, to Prince Charles and say, “Now, Chuck, don't you feel bad?” I don't know whether Charles felt bad. William did. Today, more than 300 years after William Murray got slapped for the sins of another, the phrase “whipping boy” has not disappeared from our vocabulary.

Excerpt from The Lutheran Hour broadcast of: June 8, 2003