(This post is still undergoing correction and enhancement) |
| This "monarch" of our times is such an anachronism that he thinks "liberalism" is obsolete. What he means of course is that he's suppressed the idea in the little kingdom of his mind. He's an Orthodox Christian and staunch authoritarian traditionalist. i.e. he identifies with the tribe of the far right: Steve Bannon, one time Trump chief strategist, has spoken in defense of him. In his world "might is right" and untidy democratic contentions are terminated with force. But to call him a monarch somewhat dignifies him: It's closer to the truth to think of him as a mafia godfather who puts out contracts on people he wants murdered. |
There was a time when war was the occasional pass time for the aristocracy, a way to settle family disputes, but above all a way to gain respect & status through victory and conquest. Might was right and the manifest strength of one's armies of knights in shining amour something to glory in. If your populace and your neighboring kingdoms feared your strength that was credited to your status account. These immature values were the social mores of the upper crust in medieval times. Given that life was short (and still is in some ways) it seems so small minded to turn life into a nasty brutal affair via war, fear, and famine in order to gain a few brief years of power and a name that stinks in the annals of history.
But these jingoistic cultural values go further back; at least to Old Testament times.....
In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 11:1)
Reading BC history it becomes clear that nations like the Assyrians took pleasure in being feared and they appeared to encourage their reputation for extreme brutality; for them this wasn't something to be ashamed of but instead something to be proud of; might was right. In Egypt the Pharaohs celebrated their victories and conquests in the reliefs on the walls of their palaces.
Today, authoritarian monarchs still exist in almost every sense but name. One difference perhaps is that the monarchs were constrained by the rules of family succession. This was supposed to circumvent disputes & violence when the time came for succession, although it didn't always work: Think of the violence that Solomon perpetrated to secure his position and the Wars of the Roses in England. Also worth noting in this connection is the blood letting after Mohammed's death followed by well over a millennium's worth of killing.
Whether there is any real difference between the monarchs of old and the dictators of today is debatable. The Assad family have ruled Syria for decades and so have the Kim family in North Korea. Even in our liberal Western culture the notions of dynasty, succession and rule by coercion are never far away: One of Donald Trump's rank and file followers wanted him to set up a Trump dynasty and Trump's friend Michael Flynn suggested Trump enforce an election win using the military. Would-be-dictators can be spotted a mile off. They don't like and/or do not understand the complexities of the argumentative but constitutionally controlled row of open accountable government and want to do away with it. See for example Vladimir Putin betraying his dislike of liberal democracy by expressing his wishful thinking that liberal democracy has had its day: I suspect that the rise of Donald Trump's MAGA movement in the West help confirm Putin in his views. After all Trump was an admirer of Putin and his methods and Trump was Putin's favored candidate in the US elections. Dictators have a grudging admiration of one another and share the same problems that authoritarian rule brings. Moreover, the right-wing Christians of America have much in common with Putin's traditionalist Orthodox values.
In 1 Samuel 8:6ff we read that God was not at all pleased with Israel wanting a king and we can see why: They are potentially a tyrannical intuition. Kings rule the populace and the king's ego rules the king. They are also expensive, initiating self-aggrandizing monumental projects with a high cost. In 1 Samuel 8:6ff we read:
*
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people
refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then
we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to
go out before us and fight our battles.”
*
Ancient Royalty was a kind of legalized protection racket. Under kings the common people no longer ran their own affairs and they may even have had their property confiscated. The populace gets caught up in serving the Monarch's grandiose projects and this may include going to war. At the extreme the nation becomes the Monarch's personal property to do with what he likes; the nation effectively becomes an extension of his person and the playground of his ego and whims. King David was good as kings go but even he succumbed to the temptations of despotism and became an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Monarchs are the luck of the draw and fickle with it. Absolute rulers are suspicious of rivals and positions in the government are offered on the basis of crony-ship and loyalty rather than competence. The monarch rules by fear and advisors have a tendency to tell the monarch what he wants to hear rather than the truth.
To those of us who live in a democracy where the arguments of the great and powerful are aired, openly criticized and voted on, dictatorship is an awful prospect - and it is awful - we only have to think of the nightmare that Vladimir Putin's whims have unleased on the world: "One man's war" as it has been called. But such is the perversity of human nature, like the Assyrians, Putin may actually be enjoying the outrage at his brutality because this confirms to him his strength and importance in the world, thus feeding his ego.
But there is paradox here. The Book of Judges ends with:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit. (Judges 21:25)
This is recognition that monarch's aren't all bad news. The book of judges is about a decentralized Israel. It is in fact the roughest book in the Bible and tells some very unpleasant and sordid stories. Potentially a king could act as the defender and enforcer of the law in an otherwise lawless society where the excesses of human nature have no rein.
During Henry II's reign (in England) the concept of a society run under law was worked out and consolidated (Thanks to Henry). In principle even the king himself was under the law; the king was the enforcer of the law, but was not the law itself. However, because the king was both judge and enforcer there was a conflict of interest and the system didn't work well in practice; despots could remain above the law. It was, however, better than nothing and to this end Judges 21:25 acknowledges the need for some authority to bring justice to the Middle East's equivalent of the wild west. The beginning of a more distributed and potentially self critical system of justice in England began with the Magna Carta of 1215. More the 400 years later Oliver Cromwell succeeded in imagining the idea of a parliamentary democracy (but failed to put it into practice). Ultimately, in the UK leadership and headship became two different things: headship was invested in the legal system & constitution and not fickle and unreliable human nature. It has taken the UK a 1000 years to reach this point in its democratic project and it is still by no means a finished product.
 |
| The Golden Image |
***
According 1 Samuel 8:6ff God was most displeased with Israel's desire for a king. Kings, being flawed entities like the rest of us, come with potentially very unpleasant side-effects, many of which arise because of an unbridled will driven by ego. With their absolute power, often requiring unquestioned obedience, these flaws can make kings very dangerous features of the state. The personal attachment that some followers have to their autocratic leaders is a well known phenomenon and observed strongly in the rule of Hitler, a man who cast an almost magical spell over those he ruled, a spell that was only broken for some when he committed suicide. It is this uncritical acceptance of tyrants where one of the big dangers lies.
Given this context the Christian message is inspiring on multiple fronts and addresses the human predicament so well. It is a solution which fits that predicament like a glove: Viz:
1) It recognizes the universally flawed nature of humanity. This is the first premise of Christianity. (See the book of Romans)
2) It recognizes the need to control human nature within a legal framework and yet warns us strongly that this is no ultimate solution to the problems of that nature. (See the book of Galatians). In contrast Salvation from Sin is God's free gift (Eph 2:8-10).
3) It has a dim view of human autocrats (1 Sam 8:6ff). The inherent weakness of human autocrats in dispensing judgment & justice has lead to the evolution of the UK's constitutional monarchy and open accountable government, an interim solution which must be constantly reformed as it adapts to those inevitable human failures; democracy is sometimes a very messy (but constitutionally controlled) row that would-be-dictators like Hitler, Putin and Bannon despise.
4) Finally Christianity recognizes that human beings need a human leader to identify with and unite around rather than an impersonal legal system. That instinct is fulfilled in Christ the humble God for whom the salvation of humanity comes before His own personal glory and name making. And yet paradoxically it is that very lowliness of demeanor and a servant heart which earns Him glory and a name above every other name. (Philippians 2:1-11). To receive a glorious name one must give up one's hold on glory and become a servant. What a paradox!
But is the foregoing just a neat social myth & metaphor to live by? Is the concept of God meaningful and real? That's a story I tell elsewhere.
Some relevant links and stuff:
1. A Scholar of Stalin Discusses Putin, Russia, Ukraine, and the West | The New Yorker
2. Justin Brierley at Unbelievable
