Of the four children, Susan is the 'grown up', Edmund is the redeemed, and Lucy is faithful. So what is Peter?
Peter is the eldest, the older brother, who looks after his siblings. If Susan is the mother figure, Peter is the authority figure. But how does this fit into his high king status? Was he made high king simply because the others were younger, or is it connected to the fact that he innately already possesses the qualities necessary for high kingship?
First, we must return to a simple, but overlooked and even despised fact;
kingship is service and stewardship.
*
Service, in that a king or queen gives up the privilege of being a private person, and many of the rights and luxuries we take for granted, so that this royal individual can then take care of needs which we cannot attend to ourselves; Christ was king of kings, and he paid the price for sin that we couldn't. Honestly, when was the last time Aslan
or Christ did something selfish?
*
Stewardship, because while a king or queen may have authority over the people and land they govern, neither people nor land belongs to them; they are taking care of it for the rightful owner, and cannot merely 'bury the coin', nor use it for their own ends.
Lands and people are not coins; they are either progressing or regressing, and it takes an active effort just to maintain a good situation, let alone better it. Stewards must at all times be ready to prove that their stewardship has been for good.
Stewardship therefore is keeping and maintaining a thing; Service is the bettering of it. A King is
less than the those he serves, and
more by virtue of serving.
So how does this apply to Peter the High King? Well, 'where much is given, much is required'. Peter by virtue of being the older brother was already giving up some selfish time just to take care of his brother and sisters, who were younger than him and needed that protection. He had already accepted stewardship over them.
Remember when they told Aslan that Edmund had joined the White Witch? Peter felt compelled to admit his fault in leading his brother wrong. Why? Because he felt responsible. By acknowledging his failure in stewardship to Aslan (since he had neither bettered, nor maintained his brother,) Peter was submitting to his overlord, and accepting the consequences for this mistake/lapse/oversight/weakness.
But like any good overlord, Aslan paid the price that the repentant Peter could not, and restored Edmund to his brother's 'keeping'.
Now do you understand why I was so irritated by the suggestion that there might be friction between Caspian and Peter? "Alliances and antagonisms" between kings and queens dwell in the realm of selfishness and divided interests. In this light, it is totally and utterly ridiculous that Peter would have the selfish attitude of 'king trumps a prince,' or Caspian being jealous of . . . what, Peter's coming back to put him on the throne? A life of submission executed honorably? Might as well say Peter was jealous of Aslan's position over him.
To this day, I have never heard a Christian say they wish they had been crucified instead of Christ, (on second thought, no one is stupid enough to suggest they could endure, let alone submit to what Christ did; even those who pretend it never happened). But I have heard and seen leaders wish or pretend they had the authority and power death surrendered to Christ.
This is the contrast between kingships; one focuses on the byproduct, and the other on paying the price required. The setting up of self in pride, or putting self down in humility.
If no one replies, I will be in danger of a triple-post (and the administrator's wrath). Help?
Silence