The first question to ask is whether or not Christianity supports government of any kind.

Two major factors obstruct the notion that this little blue ball is of little consequence. One, common experience would show that we live within the bounds of this life, and all our decisions require some physical action, including prayer. Death immediately follows total physical inaction, and suicide by intentionally starving oneself is not a Christian principle, therefore this argument need not be pursued further, since we are only examining Christian beliefs here, and not other faiths and pure spiritualism. The body is never rejected as having no value in Christianity, since the incarnation of Christ would necessarily become meaningless. Such Spiritualism is not a principle of the Christian faith, and though several heresies over the years have propagated the idea that the body is somehow a vestigial organ, and better destroyed than left alive, this is not believed by any major sect of Christian faith, though many heresies have pursued this notion.  

The second obstructive factor is the vast quantities of passages in the Christian Scriptures that contain admonishment to behave in the physical world as though such behavior had real meaning and value. For example, the Christian is given the example of the highest leadership among the early Church being overwhelmed with the sheer number of persons they were feeding and caring for, and so had to appoint others to physically care for the needs of others. Acts 6:1-3 “And in those days when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said, “It is not fitting that we should leave the Word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, look ye out among you for seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business…” This passage very clearly shows the importance to the early Church of the care for the physical needs of persons. Some here would say that service to the “Word of God” being placed higher than the mission of the chosen seven somehow renders that mission unimportant, but that would, of course, render the actions of the twelve in choosing the seven unimportant, and that would lead to the unimportance of the twelve. Additionally, the ministration to the Word here requires physical action by itself, clearly revealing the importance of the physical world.

Two more passages will make this even more clear. James 1:27 says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” This passage makes it clear that the physical care of persons who cannot care for themselves is expressly demanded by the Christian faith (Justice for those that cannot get it for themselves has traditionally been one of the fundamental purposes of government). Additionally, in 1 Timothy chapter 5, special law is given to define the physical nature of widows to be so cared for (1 Timothy 5:9-10 “No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.”), which easily establishes a precedent for the need to pay attention to the physical needs of those around us. From these few passages, among many, we see the direct commandment to engage not merely spiritually in the building up of the Kingdom of Heaven, but that such a work requires the daily dirt and grind of physical effort. If the physical bodies of the widows here in question were of no import, then why would special care be given to enumerate who specifically qualifies for the title, and why then was there established an ordered, lawful system for their care? The only answer that can be given is that the physical bodies and actions of Christians matter to Christians.

suicide by intentionally starving oneself is not a Christian principle

Our estimable Christian must take into his careful consideration the fact that the early Church itself set up a government. The Kingdom of Heaven had a distinct hierarchy, first came the now invisible God who had so recently visibly dwelt among them, and second came the twelve apostles. These apostles had the authority to set up seven persons who were commanded to wait at tables. These seven had specific duties enumerated by the twelve that involved the physical ministration of the people, and as the number of disciples continued to grow, so would naturally the number of persons needed for this role. Additionally, a specific hierarchy of church leadership was established immediately with overseers and deacons based on the Jewish system that the Christian had come out of. It becomes clear that the early Church had no difficulties with governmental systems within itself.

However, many would like to stop here with a sanctioned Church government, and not continue to a sanctioned civil government. However, the Christian Scriptures continue with the definitive passage from Saint Paul in Romans chapter 13 on government. Romans 13:1-7 “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

From this passage it becomes abundantly clear that governing authorities are so far from being opposed to Christianity that they are in fact appointed by God Himself. And unless this passage would have been confused as to pertain only to Church governing authorities, Saint Paul speaks of taxes and the sword, something only a civil government maintains. As if in refutation of pacifists in his day, the author makes it clear that he does not allow passive submission to government either, as an evil government is worthy of no honor. Our estimable Christian is not told to passively submit to just any form of government that happens to exist at the time of our his living, instead, he is given an exhortation to submit to government theoretically, or rather to submit to the archetype of civil government.

This is proven in that if one were to read Paul literally, he would have been speaking of the Roman government only, and since that government is done away with, Christians would no longer be bound to the law revealed in this passage. But, if we instead understand the passage as speaking of governments in theory, then it applies to all men in all time—as indeed all of the Christian God’s laws are supposed to do.

Even less so does the passage require passive submission to evil forms of government, if that were the case, then Christianity would be built on a lesser archetypal law than said government. A simple example  will easily illustrate the point. If our estimable Christian is born into, or finds himself in, a tyrannical government that demands tyrant worship and the denunciation of the Christian God in order to obey the law of that land, the Christian cannot comply with such a law and remain a Christian.

An excellent example of this very thing is found in Daniel chapter 3, when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego found themselves under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. These faithful worshippers of the Judeo-Christian God refused to comply with exactly such an order, and for their pains were sent to a fiery death in the furnace. These persons fully complied with the Christian principle of obedience to God, even as they disobeyed the government.

Another example is this, if a Christian finds himself in a government that has laws that limit the number of children he is allowed to have, and requires the execution of any additional infants made by that person, then he cannot both comply with the law and with Christianity. Another example is a government that creates laws forbidding attendance in regular church gatherings for any amount of time. The reasons for such an order as we see everywhere present today are irrelevant, a Christian is not required to comply with a tyrannical government that demands they cease to practice Christianity for any reason or duration. To comply in any of these situations would fundamentally undermine Christianity as less than the human government.

As such, we must understand that Paul is enumerating the simple fact that government as an idea is a good thing, but Paul is not endorsing every government that has ever existed—that would be lunacy. When he says that there is no authority except that which is from God, he means the idea of government, not that God literally sets up every governor. If God did individually set up every governor, he would necessarily have set up Nebuchadnezzar, and then demanded that his people disobey his authority when His authority demanded that they deny Him. This would set up a self-defeating cycle. Unfortunately, because Paul’s passage has for some time now been interpreted much too literally, some very real problems have arisen in modern Christian thought concerning government, but the idea that government is a good thing, and established by God cannot be denied.

Paul is not endorsing every government that has ever existed—that would be lunacy.

One last difficulty regarding the physical nature of governments supported by the Christian God comes up in the often-misunderstood passage in John 18:36 “Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” It would seem from first glance that Jesus is saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is never to be a physical kingdom, and that His servants should never fight for such a concept, but that is not entirely accurate.

Jesus plays a very different role than a regular human. He is taught to be God incarnate, and at the time written about in the passage He is on the eve of leaving this world in physical form. The kingdom that Pilate believed He was attempting to set up would have been a physical kingdom that would die in thirty or so years with the natural expiration of the man Jesus. Instead, Jesus made clear the distinction that He would be coming to establish another kingdom in a future return, but His physical presence would only remain in the second kingdom, not in the current. He in no way is repudiating physical governance as a concept—Jesus was no anarchist—but He was giving a prophecy that He would return and fulfill government, just as He fulfilled the law. This passage in no way denies a Christian government either, all it does is state plainly that Christians cannot have God as governor yet.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world…”

If then, our estimable Christian approves of a civil government, who should set up such a system? Does it make any sense for a non-Christian to be involved in the construction of such an important system? If God is said to establish the authority of civil government, should not His people who alone obey His commandments build the system?

If all persons in a country are given the opportunity to create the government of that country, but the majority are not fellow believers, then what form of government will they establish? It is hard to imagine that those persons who are not of the Christian Faith will want to, or even be capable of, creating a moral system. The Christian God gave every tool of doctrine and rule of personal interaction necessary to the Christian to establish a godly system of governance throughout His many long years of interacting with humanity, but all these tools and histories are nothing to the non-Christian. All the non-Christian has at his disposal in the creation of a government is his own moral compass, a tool as recorded that the Christian God wrote on the hearts of all men, but that is so easily disturbed by what the Christians call sin. The non-believer may have a conscience, and he will also have the tools of social study and maths to try and calculate the probability of success of one form of governance over another, but his studies will always be lacking the fundamental essence of Christianity, that of God’s revelation of His divine will to man.

It makes very little sense for a Christian to submit to the lost and broken moral compasses of non-Christians. They are, after all, by nature opposed to the very nature of Christianity. Nor does it make sense for Christians to stand out of the way in an existing form of government to allow non-Christians to operate the tiller of said government. According to Christian principles, government is an established authority of God on earth, and as such it is fundamentally immoral and anti-Christian to allow non-Christians to helm the godly ship of state. It would fundamentally destroy a church to allow a blatant non-Christian to become the pastor of that church. So, it also fundamentally destroys government to allow blatantly non-Christians to helm that government.

It also doesn’t make any sense to allow non-Christians to govern anyone, they are by definition immoral people. Justice cannot reign in the hearts of non-Christians, so how can they dispense with justice to others? Christianity teaches that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), and as this is the moral compass of the non-believer, it seems lunacy to allow them the highest offices in government. When non-believers are allowed to rule, one should expect every form of evil to come out of government, as the governors are by nature selfish, and selfish persons seek to take whatever they can get from whomever they can get it from.

If then, our estimable Christian seeks a Christian government, even as he seeks a Christian kingdom, what then would a Christian choose from all the various forms to establish as a fundamentally Christian government? Our estimable Christian would have to choose a form that is by nature Christian. He would not want to choose a form that is fundamentally secular or based out of a non-Christian faith. To do so would be to deny the very purpose of setting up a Christian government in the first place. Therefore, the question becomes, what form of government is Christian?

Since republics and democracies are secular by nature as explained in “Why the American Republic was Always Doomed to Fail” since they respect no higher moral authority than the people, we will set aside that most common form in our day and look to the only three options a Christian has that can be considered of Christian nature fundamentally. First, a theocracy, second, a system of Judges, and third, a Monarchy. We will first examine the Theocracy.

The definition of a theocracy is one in which God Himself is incarnated into the position of ruler. This presupposes a physical manifestation of God among men. This has not yet happened, and as the passage in John 18:36 made so clear, this is something that is to be expected, waited on, and watched for. Indeed, the second coming establishes the theocratic government Christianity looks for. However, this is a government to come, and in the meantime, Christians cannot, by necessity, experience it. Any attempt to establish a theocracy today denies the second coming. Even the Jews did not have a theocracy. God always had a mediator between himself and man, whether it was Moses or one of the judges.

It may be said that Moses experienced a theocracy, and so too can all men individually, but this concept forgets the fact that Moses fulfilled a very real civil governmental position and was even given a civil government by his God to establish across all the Hebrews. The only people who truly experienced a theocracy were Adam and Eve, but that was quickly lost.

Theocracies being temporarily withheld from our esteemed Christian; we will next examine the Mosiac system of Judges. Under a system like that which the early Jews had after they settled in the Promised Land, the law first given to Moses was applied to all the people, and they followed it traditionally. They  were admonished whenever they left off keeping the law by singular prophets as established by the mysterious selection of God and the approval of the prophet and of the people. This system quickly dissolved into chaos as false prophets arose, and the people refused to listen to true prophets. Nowhere better is this seen than in Judges 17:6 “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

The difficulty with a system of loose, non-hierarchical governance, is that everyone ends up doing whatever they want with little to no consequences. Technically speaking, if all men were as angels, then any system of governance would work out, as all would behave perfectly, and the good would be obeyed, and the bad ignored, but as men are men and live in a fallen world, a more orderly system will always be necessary. It is little better for Christians to endure a system of Judges arising from every corner, some real, some false, and all men obeying whatever impulse they feel at the time, and whatever temporary leader that can rise to dominance, than for Christians to allow non-believers to establish and helm government for them. The problem is that without a hierarchical leadership system, nominal, or even false Christians who simply desire power can rise to leadership positions. This will lead to the same problems as if the government were not Christian at all.

The only other form of government left as fundamentally Christian by nature is a Monarchy. A Monarchy is separate from a Tyranny or an Empire, and must not be confused as such, since a Monarchy must meet three criteria to even be considered a Monarchy. First, a Monarchy must have hereditary succession in that the mantle of authority is passed on via lot to God’s chosen ruler in the form of the first-born son. Second, a monarchy must be under God, submission to an authority higher than the king or the queen must be acknowledged publicly. Third, participatory rule in government must be maintained and allowed, and that means lords and ladies, all with their own right to rule. Any deviation from these three criteria will result in a monarch losing the right to be called such.

The first two of the three criteria begin to reveal why a Monarchy is a fundamentally Christian archetype. The primary method by which God censors wicked kings is by rendering them barren. As it is a well-known Christian principle that God is the author of life, so this principle applies to the breath of life that invests a fertilized egg with personhood. God reserves the right to sanction a ruler, or to bless his reign with sons. Most of the Monarchies in the early modern period of history were plagued with issues of succession, and it is very little wonder, considering how sacrilegious this period of history was, where every man threw off the vestiges of godly authority and established their own religions, and even completely annihilated religion entirely. There is a reason why it was considered reproachful if a woman was barren in Jewish culture (Luke 1:24-25), because they understood that the gift of life was from God, and could be given, as in the case of Sara (Hebrews 11:11), or taken away. Indeed it could not be more clearly stated that the seed of life is from God than the passage in Psalms 127:3-5 “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.”

The second Monarchical criteria is even more clear than the first, revealing the fundamentally religious nature of kingship. When we imagine a king being crowned, the image that typically comes to mind is a gorgeous chapel, a divine choir in red robes, and usually an Archbishop of Canterbury or of Rome. The scene is always religious, and in fact it is nearly impossible to imagine the crowning of a king apart from the religious ceremonies that have traditionally accompanied it. Certain famous persons have scandalized the event throughout history, such as Napoleon Bonaparte at the last moment taking the crown and placing it upon his own head—and very likely ensuring his ultimate demise. Such historical examples rather reinforce the need to submit to authority rather than destroying it.

The tradition of submission to the authority of the Church has always played an enormous role in the crowning of monarchs, and this submission carries all the way back through Jewish history as well, with the anointing of future kings with holy oil by the prophet of God. This became the transition of the right to reign from the impotent prophets to the promised line of kings, from which the Messiah would eventually come. 1 Samuel 16:1 “Now the Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his son.”

Submission to authority is often the first step toward the Christian faith, seeing as how slavery to God is required (Romans 6:22), and no greater submission could be found than voluntarily entering the position of slavery. This does not mean, however, that the subjects of a king are his slaves, far from it. More on the system of participation and local rule of a monarchy will be written in subsequent articles but suffice it to say for now that a King rules over willing subjects. Additionally, submission to God does not mean that the Christian is meant to submit to no one else, as God has set up authority on earth, and to disobey the authority He set up is to disobey Him. Forms of recognizable authority clearly established by God are authority of parents over their children, and teachers over students, and man over the earth, references to which are all easily found in the Christian Scriptures. That a republic is based on the premise that the smallest unit of society is somehow self-governed via his ability to vote is repugnant to Christianity, since a republic demands pride in the self as the highest authority in government. It has already been adequately shown that God set up governmental authority on earth, and even divested some of His right to rule within the scheme of governance (Romans 13). However, it is of critical importance that submission to God is still required even by those in highest office.

Additionally, the Christian Scriptures reveal that Christ expects to rule over kings, who in turn are meant to submit to this rule. Revelation 1:5-6 “and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” This passage does not simply mean that Christ is the ruler over whatever form of government happens to exist, as some will not be ruled by Him, and are destined to damnation, but a king naturally submits to the authority of Christ, rendering it possible for Christ to rule over him, and for him not to be utterly annihilated in the process.

One of the things that separates a king from a tyrant, or an emperor, or even a president, is that the king receives his office of authority directly from the church. Without the Bishop, a king cannot be crowned. That goes for every single monarch in succession, even the children of the monarch must be crowned with the authority of the church. Without this blessed anointing, no king can be crowned. This is the second method by which God may censor a king. If a king’s son engages in activities so heinous and immoral that all know and are aware of his unrepentance, then the leadership of the church can refuse to crown the natural successor to the throne, and another, more moral person will be crowned instead, and the country will be spared from an impious ruler. This is a critical check on the king’s power, and significantly more important than any secular balancing act within the branches of government.

It should also be clear, now, that the concept of separation of Church and State is fundamentally opposed to Christian values. Christians ought to run a Christian government, and the best way to do so is with a Christian king, crowned by the Christian Church. If the Christian Church, set up by God Himself is not to anoint the rulership of Christian lands, then who is?

The third Monarchical criteria is somewhat less easily understood as fundamentally Christian, but it relates to family values, which are very Christian. Participation in government by the family of the monarch typically reveals itself in the nuclear family first, where the king is supported by his best and most important advisor—the queen. His younger brothers and sisters will often have their own titles and lands, and participate in government in their own right, as well as taking on positions of advisership, and other military and civil roles. The monarch’s children will grow up in court, being taught from birth how to navigate political waters, and will train themselves on how to rule from observance of the current rulers. The extended family of the king will also have their own titles and lands in their own right, but being related to the monarch by blood, will naturally support their family with more diligence and effort than a stranger, and in turn the king will support them in all normal familial matters and also in matters of state. Essentially, government is a family matter, and participation in family affairs is also participation in government. Nothing could be more Christian, or more Traditional, than supporting your own family.

Additionally, just as in the Christian religion, Christ is the head of the man, and the man the head of the household, so too is the Christ the head of the king, and the king the head of the state, this is something called living iconography. Just as Christ is the head of the church, but a pastor fills the role on earth while waiting for the return of Christ, so too does a king fulfill the iconographical role on earth of kingship. That the Christians have been promised a king makes it all the more important to behave on earth iconographically, in that Christians should be godly.

This brings us to the final conclusions regarding why a Christian should want a king, and several last points must be raised. First of all, Christians were promised a king, not a senate or a president, and as such, monarchy is to be viewed by Christians as higher than any of these other forms of government, as that is the form God chose for His ultimate purpose. Second of all, just as the man is the iconographical stand-in for Christ on earth in his family, so too is the monarch the iconographical stand-in for the king to come.

Acts 2:29-30 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne…” It was very important for God to set up a special line of inheritance for the Messiah. In fact, Christ is of a line of kings, and that means that the role of monarchs is critically important to God and to the redemptive arc found throughout the Christian Scriptures. 1 Timothy 6:15 “which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords…” Again, the Christ is described as king of kings, a beautiful line of poetry, but also impossible in a world of senates and sufficiencies. As an act of submission to the will of God on earth, a Christian ought to demand a Christian government anointed by the Christian Church, and thus by God Himself, and the only form that fits the bill is Monarchy.

it is fundamentally immoral and anti-Christian to allow non-Christians to helm the godly ship of state.