The New Testament tells us to honor the king and given the Neronic context of these writings and apostolic exhortations, that imperative remains true even if the regime can be categorised as bestial. As such, rebellion or collaboration with anti-monarchical forces is forbidden to Christians in all cases.
But this is further complicated when the command is applied
to republican context or situations in which a dictatorial regime is in power.
Some Christians have employed casuistry in this regard and there is a long if
unfortunate tradition of Christians undermining these commandments and
justifying rebellion and the taking up of arms. This is in error on multiple
levels and these Christians fall under the condemnation of the Scriptures and
bring judgment on themselves.
Taking the Scriptures seriously, we must ask what does it
mean to honor the king? It's not always so clear. Do we honor the person or
just the office? How far does that honor extend?
We pray for these rulers but not necessarily for their
success and flourishing – such concepts also must be defined. Like the exiles
in Babylon we pray for the peace of the city but in New Testament terms we're
mostly praying that they leave us alone – that we may pursue our purposes –
quiet and godly lives as the New Testament puts it, engaged in Kingdom purposes
which are not at all on the same track as that of the world or the cities and
cultures within which we find ourselves.
We obey the laws even to our hurt and yet there are cases
wherein we are called to disobey them and suffer the consequences. Contrary to
the Evangelical community, it's not our task to fight the government on this
point or engage in activism via politics or the courts. Rather, we take up the
cross and testify to the glory of God. The Evangelicals have not understood the
meaning of 'the powers that be are ordained of God' and in fact they reject it.
This statement is part of the context of 'offering ourselves a living
sacrifice' mentioned in the previous chapter. This submission is itself an act
of faith and therefore trust and obedience. The mammon-enslaved Evangelicals
who desire power and status above all us simply won't have it and spend a great
deal of time either ignoring the imperatives of Romans 13 or perverting them to
their own ends – and again bring judgment on themselves and their movement.
Respect is implied by honor and so it's not our task to jeer
or show blatant disrespect to the monarch or ruler of a land. Again with the
issues surrounding modern polities we get into questions of de jure status
versus de facto realities. The oft employed argument by Right-wing Americans
that the Constitution is King is absurd as it is but a document that must be
interpreted and applied by someone. Even monarchies have charters and mandates
that must be interpreted and applied by the monarch. The Right-wing argument
regarding the Constitution is a deceitful trick, an employment of casuistry to
justify disobedience to the ruling order and to dodge (what is for them) the
uncomfortable and burdensome realities of Romans 13.
In the Americans system the president is the ruler – the head
of government and head of state and as such fulfills the Romans 13 role and so
in that capacity we must honor this person and the other leaders within
government. We may not like them or respect them as persons but they're in that
office because of Providence. And Providence certainly can judge a land and
even the apostate churches within it. Trump was just such a judgment and
Christians had no business supporting him or collaborating with those who
sought to take him down. We need not weep when these rulers fall but we're not
to be part of it as we are citizens of another Kingdom.
Therefore does honor mean endorsement or veneration?
I don't think so. Again, we pray for them, obey the laws, and
pay our taxes even to our hurt. It's easier when we're not heavily invested in
the society and amassing wealth. We don't engage in political resistance. We
are respectful to Caesar and yet the New Testament doesn't shy away from
presenting Rome as the Beast that it was. Likewise, while the people of Britain
must respect and honor the monarch, this does not mean a blind capitulation to
the monarchy and/or the British system. In fact Christians cannot sign on to it
as in the end it also represents a mammon-bestial order.
Elizabeth II is loved and largely venerated. It has always
struck me in some respects as peculiar because the hallmark of her reign was in
fact the dismantling and decline of the British Empire. Britain was still
ailing when she came to throne, still under rationing, and largely broke. Until
the mid-1950's, the UK attempted to retain its global standing even as it was rapidly
shedding its imperial possessions – India being one of the most significant. In
some cases, this dismantling was peaceful, and in others it was brutal as was
seen in places like Malaya and Kenya. And even India's departure was
accompanied by Partition – a British hatched scheme exacerbated by British
colonial policy that led to violence and over a million deaths.
One would think in some respects Elizabeth's legacy would be
one of disgrace and shame. While the old guard lamented the Empire's decline,
the Queen was left to shepherd (in part) a process that was beyond her ability
to control. She receives praise because the dismantling could have become
chaotic and she provided a steady hand and presence to the process and the
retention of a type of dignity and order.
And simply speaking in terms of 'dismantling' would be an
error, an overly simplistic reading and understanding of these events. In
reality as the political empire was broken into pieces, Britain like its fellow
imperialist power France reconstructed their empires into what some have
referred to as Neo-Colonialism. Cultural influence remained strong especially
in some places and economic domination continued in many respects and thus the
Commonwealth and the City of London in particular became the focus of this
power in a way similar to the American dynamic between Lower Manhattan and the
military and political power centres in Washington.
But in some respects this has always been the case even at
the height of Empire. Money is always a major factor but the way the power is
wielded has shifted. The City is an entity all its own, almost a state within
the state and while it is not divorced from the governance and concerns of
Parliament or the scope and influence of monarchy it (post WWII) represents a
shift in the way the British Empire would function and the way in which its
power was to be wielded. The Empire continued and yet in this diffracted and
primarily financially based capacity – and through entities such as the
Commonwealth and at times the institutions of Atlanticism, albeit in a
subordinate capacity to the dominant American Empire.
It's been interesting to observe some of the royal transition
ceremony surrounding The City of London (which is found within London itself). The
City is its own entity and follows different rules. Liz Truss has recently
promised to 'unshackle' the city in a call reminiscent of Reagan's promise to
'turn the bull loose' at the New York Stock Exchange back in 1985.
Under the feudal order, the monarch owns the country – he is
the country. All the titles and their lands are granted by the monarch and
belong to him or her. Britain's history is unique and the subject of great
analysis and commentary as it turned away from this path centuries ago and many
historians would argue this is what allowed the monarchy to survive the
post-Enlightenment turmoil, the Age of Revolutions that brought so many kings
to their end. The Constitutional order established with The Glorious Revolution
marked a significant step in this process and while the monarch still wielded
(and in some capacity still wields) considerable power, the raw kind of feudal
overlordship has diminished and disappeared. The power of today's monarch is a
kind of soft power and yet the monarchy also controls a vast amount of wealth.
This alone possesses a kind of power and when combined with the office and
means of influence – this means that the monarch is an important person on the
world stage.
In some respects one is reminded of the Papacy and its
transformation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Deprived of
lands and political lordship, the popes shifted the nature of their power. They
too (like the British monarchy) went through a process of financialisation –
all too appropriate for the democratic capitalist age. Like the British
monarch, the papacy is in possession of vast wealth and soft power. Combined,
this makes the person formidable and yet because the power is soft – its extent
is largely dependent on the aptitude of the one wielding it. This is a pressing
question when it comes to Charles III. How will he manage it?
There is a wisdom in the structure of constitutional monarchy
but in saying so this is not to imply an endorsement. It's not a Christian
system as indeed there aren't any to be found in this present evil age.
Democracy isn't remotely Christian either, indeed none of the
polities which emerged from the Enlightenment are. A king can be a despot, a
blessing, or neither. Bottom line there is no ideal order, but in the context
of The Age of Democracy, a constitutional monarchy has a certain appeal. It
provides stability and the head of state is a person above and officially
outside of politics. The king possesses a certain reverence and majesty that
affords him the power to compel subject-politicians to come to the table and
work things out. Or in the case of crisis, the monarch can intervene and then
(as per the Constitutional structure) step back once stability is re-established.
On a practical level the arrangement found in the Dutch
Republic wasn't too bad. The Prince of Orange was a kind of de facto
constitutional monarch and yet the nature of the power changed over time. It
was a tolerant society but one largely given to mammon and usury. Non-Reformed
people couldn't hold office or attain status in society but they were tolerated
and left alone – something that did not happen in England before the Glorious
Revolution.
One has to laugh at some of the misunderstandings being
expressed by today's egalitarian context. One thinks of the tortured and
ridiculous tale of Harry and Meghan or just the other day I heard a
British-Indian woman expressing dismay that as the new monarch is a white male
she has no connection or affinity with him. Apparently she doesn't understand
what monarchy is – clearly prima donna Meghan doesn't either. This isn't about
democracy, equality, fairness or social contract – it's about a right to rule,
order, privilege, and the like. In the old days it was about oaths and
obligations and concepts of royal blood – ruling by grace of God. This isn't to
say it's right or Christian, but that's what it is like it or not.
What's silly is that this Indian woman might have lived in
Mughal India where the ruler did look like her and yet Hindus would have found
little comfort in such identity and racial politics as their rulers were Muslim.
It's clear that many people love the grand old buildings, the trappings and
ceremony of olden days but they don't remotely understand what it was all
about. And if she doesn't like the British monarchy then why venture to the
land that conquered her ancestors – and then expect them to conform to her
notions? Is she serious?
Monarchy is not democratic. Officially the people living
under a monarchy are subjects and not citizens and yet Britain has attempted to
combine these concepts. The modern UK is in some respects a living
contradiction, a political dynamic, continuing to dance a rather difficult and
delicate step, but for the most part it works. It's fascinating on many levels
– even if at times it is somewhat repugnant.
For some the fascination with the monarchy is kind of romanticism,
an inner longing for the embodiment of the nation, and a comfort in tradition.
For others they find stability in the institution, a healthy and desirable
stasis that defies the turmoil of modern politics.
Let's just say that Americans may wish for something like a
Constitutional Monarchy in the near future. Without it, the stability may end
up being found in dictatorship. It wouldn't be the first time a nation has
acquiesced to such a solution in the face of dangerous instability and chaos.