Does Christianity support monarchism? There are those
especially in Eastern Orthodoxy and in Roman Catholicism
who are monarchists. Jay Dyer makes a case for this.
But as one protestant on a radio show said decades ago,
contrary to those who argue for democracy as the only
way, that the Bible doesn't mandate any one form of
government.
Orthodox sometimes might answer that we should go
by tradition which was developed mostly in monarchial
contexts, including the Byzantine empire, and that the
Bible is to be read allegorically aka spiritually. But the
ORthodox tradition on the latter is that spiritual applications
of Scripture do not replace or negate the historical literal
statements of Scripture.
And in the days of the Mosaic Covenant, initially they had
no king, YHWH was king and the top ruler of the people
was in effect His prime minister. Initially this was Moses,
the prophet and lawgiver who led them, replaced by
Joshua who Moses appointed to take over after him, at
God's command. Thereafter they were ruled by "judges"
sopetim to judge, govern, rule, punish, to decide controversy
raised up by God and were not hereditary rulers. When the
people eventually demanded to have a king, God said this
was a kind of rebellion against Him, but gave them a king,
first Saul then David and his lineage. Before this in
Deuteronomy anticipating such a move, God gave rules
for the king they would have when they had one.
So you see monarchs on earth were not God's initial
provision, but rulers who operated under God. They were
somewhat like dictators, but they were not hereditary.
God was the King. And when Jesus Christ comes back,
He will be King forever on earth. "of His Kingdom there
shall be no end" says the Creed.
it is a mistake however to view this sort of kingless state
as without government, tribal councils and leaders are a
form of government, the judges were a form of government
resembling a king in power over all the people and tribes,
but not hereditary, and eventually there were kings.
Judges starts and ends with the statement that there was
no king in Israel and every man did as was right in his own
eyes, and the result was repeated disaster of one sort or
another. Under the kings, however, if the king was corrupt
or apostate there was still trouble. no form of government
is a guarantee of godliness and right operation socially or
economically or politically. Some idiot right winger once
cited this as supporting his semi anarchistic extremely
limited ideal of government, but in context it doesn't do so
but negates the value of this.
As shown in the Bible, having monarchy does not solve
problems if the monarch is not righteous. and being
hereditary you can't get rid of a bad family. The present
claimants to old thrones are all or mostly eurotrash some
outright perverts and some into occultism. These have
all been alleged of the British royal family and definitely
indicated here and there among other defunct ruling
families whether royal or duchy. Even the last Tsar of
Russia was dabbling in dubious stuff, an occultist he was
persuaded by the Church to dump, followed by Rasputin
who was just as bad but more presentable initially. and
was interested in Tibetan buddhism probably because of
its fasting and apparent wonder working at times. Russians
in general, according to one priest of the time, had
succumbed to a kind of dreamy state and dual faith was
something present enough to have to be fought. Even the
placing of icons on the altar to bless them and take them
home became prohibited so occultists weren't using this
either to abuse them or perhaps keep a lid on what could
go wrong when messing with magic. Some of this influence
was local holdover pagan practices, some came into Russia
with the French influence and Tsar PEter the Great's efforts
at modernization.
Until Christ comes back, something largely ignored by
Orthodox but stated in the Creed, the best government would
be something that limits government power while allowing its
intervention to stop various evils God has denounced,
including economic ones, has transparency (which makes a
free press not infected with government agents essential), and
very few unaccountable unelected people of power
(deep state) such as the vipers that have made up the
American state department for generations. And whose top
rulers are replaceable by peaceable means and not hereditary.
a king's role includes correction of evils that develop, and
therefore it is a proper role of government. The Law of Moses
included non negotiable commands to engage in charity, incl.
effectively the confiscation for the levites and the poor in
general of the third year's tithe, and prohibition on harvesting
the edges of your land, or going over your land in harvest to
get what you missed, these were for the poor to take.
(gleaning, a modern equivalent is dumpster diving).
So in general, the best analysis of any government type or
action is not does it fit libertarian, communist, fascist, oligarchic
or whatever ideal or ideology you are judging by, but in each
matter does it fit with the Bible or not?
Some things conservatives are upset about are indeed ungodly.
Other things are not, and in fact more constitutionally consistant
than not.
