(ok, I fibbed about shutting up)
lol you say that like it proves that God intended there to be kings!! lol
1 Samuel 8:6-7 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Good point! HOWEVER...
I think the passage you are using is a case of "apples and oranges", in so far as the situation of Israel at this point was much
different than the situation of the Kingless "republican" styles of government which have appeared here and there throughout history (and have become fairly common since the revolutionist movements of the Enlightenment
For, strictly speaking (using America as an example), the President is the "head of state" - where as in Israel at this time, the Lord was the head of state
. And I'm not using these terms in an analogous or ambiguous way - no, the Lord settled disuptes, and issued decrees just as visibly and discernably (from the Mosaic Tabernacle) as any flesh and blood President ever has. Unless of course, you're suggesting that the Presidency in the U.S. is simply a fable, and in fact you have an official Priesthood in your country which receives the audiable oracles of God (in a terrifying, archaic Hebrew perhaps?) from the place just above the Mercy Seat...
Allow me to throw in some controversy here - I think materially, there is no difference between an Emperor or King (particularly the former) and a "President", save in the popular consciousness (and that is the problem, imho.)
- Both (monarchs and "presidents") are in fact the "head of state"
- The difference between them, realistically, fundamentally lies in the manner of selection. Kingships, are via bloodline. Empires, while typically via bloodline, do not always have to be (for example, the Roman Emperor could
, at least at one point as far as I know, have chosen someone other than his son to succeed him). And Presidencies, are the result of those who are enfranchised (in America, this is every adult...though historically, this wasn't so, nor does it have to be so to constitute a "presidency") voting. All that distinguishes the form of Imperial rule, from the presedential kind, is the duration the successor is understood to enjoy rule (permanent vs. temporary.)
The fundamental problem I have with most "republican" style governments, is the popular consciousness which is associated with them. While materially, the President (as head of state) is really under the same obligations before God as a King is, this is not clear to the people. Indeed, inherent to such "presidencies" (which are the fruit of various revolutionary trends and Enlightenment philosophies, which I think we can safely say were "contra-Christian" in their ethos) is the false
idea that authority comes from the people
Nay - authority, all authority (whether it be that of a parent over their child, or a King over his Kingdom) comes from God.
Besides the practical benefits I perceive in monarchism (whether on a Kingdom or Imperial scale), one big benefit (particularly when the ruler is a Christian) is the unambiguous witness
that the person inheriting the throne, not only possesses authority, by does so from above
. While there are varying possible forms for establishing how the successor will be selected (bloodline, the choice of the previous holder of the Throne, etc.), there is no ambiguity as to where their power comes from once they are duly seated.
This is why the economy of sacral-kingly rule, is the only form of human headed
government which the People of God have ever known (save for the exceptional example, prefiguring the world to come, of the Israelites who enjoyed the direct, day to day government of the Lord from the Tabernacle - a situation not at all analogous to the American situation.) This is the synergy, in a "healthy", Christian society, which the Orthodox peoples have traditionally symbolized in the form of the "double headed eagle" (used in "Byzantium", and also by the "Third Rome", the Russian Empire)...
(The Insignia of the Romanov Dynasty)
The one head, symbolizing the authority of the Church, the other the authority of the State - the two together, ruling their respective spheres, while at the same time supporting one another.