A Christian monarch is one who rules as a servant of God - and on the assumption that he or she was chosen by God for the job, and is guided by God in this task.
This is only possible in and for a society which is, overall, Christian - and therefore wants to be ruled by a monarch who at least aims-to rule the society on Christain principles; wants to be ruled by a monarch who himself aspires to be representative of God's will on earth and in mortal life (as best as possible with imperfect people in an imperfect world).
Anybody who is elected owes their position to the electors - or more often to those who rig and fix the election - and not to God. The exception is when the electors are few enough to gather in a room, and devout enough to subordinate their wishes to what they perceive of the divine will; and devoted enough to their people to seek a good and universal Father (or Mother) to the nation.
But for the decision of such a small group of devout people to be accepted and binding; requires that the powers of the population-at-large acknowledge the authority of this group - and this can only happen on the basis of a geniune and shared religion.
The first conclusion is that good government is not possible in the West today, because the people have no religion and are secular rejectors. It is absurd to suppose that a Christian monarch could be planted atop our society, and allowed to rule impartially and lovingly - yet with power and authority - on behalf of God.
A society has to deserve a great leader, or else the leader will either not lead, or not be great.
So there is no possible system by which The West as it is could have good political leadership.
A good leader is usually Father to the nation - but our nations are in permanent rebellion against parents, and especially Fathers. A good leader operates on the basis of broadly-shared transcendental ideals - but The West does not believe in the reality of the transcendental.
A good leader rules for the general and long-term spiritual good of his people (his 'children') - but we want only material good, and specifically for ourselves, and we want it now.
The West must first become religious, specifically Christian - and only then will good leadership become possible. And if, as seems likely, we do not become Christian; then we might as well forget about pining for good leadership - which is an irresponsible waste of our finite time; and instead concentrate our efforts and attentions on something attainable.
13 comments:
It may sound outlandish, but I think Europe (or part of it at least) could be ruled again by a monarch within ten years. Such a figure may even be waiting in the wings. For this to happen though, there would have to be a political, economic, military or natural calamity of such magnitude that it would shock people awake - back to faith and back to a proper understanding of the relationship between what St. Augustine called the 'Two Cities' - the City of God and The City of Man.
It doesn't map on exactly, but I wonder if something roughly analogous happens in The Return of the King. The Dark Tower falls, Faramir feels a new freshness in the air, Elessar is crowned, the natural order is restored and a new Golden Age is inaugurated.
@JF - You are right - and this is what lends the dominant Secular Left its continued aggression and zeal, because this is what they so much fear. Indeed, the greater their success, the more brittle it becomes. Things could change very rapidly indeed, like wildfire.
HOWEVER, the things could change in the direction NOT of Christianity but of the other major monotheism - indeed, on the whole, that is currently more likely in my view - it being 'the religion of the future' and therefore with expediency on its side. It also has an obvious and credible appeal to young men perhaps especially those of currently low status and poor prospects. (Mainstream Christianity - and by diffusion the real CHristians to, to a much lesser extent - has a great inertial disadvantage of two-plus generations of increasing anti-Men prejudice/ affirmative action to overcome.)
After all the other major monotheism is clearer, simpler and contains much of what is in Christianity - including what is good; and is clearly a proven formidable rival with a resilient cellular structure. Meanwhile the real Christian denominations seem, on the whole, to be negating each other. And most of the stronger mainstream real Christian churches are, on the whole, rejecting of attempts to deal with the brittle, unconvincing and repellant literalism, materialism and positivism of their faith...
So I remain hopeful but not optimistic.
A Christian monarch is definitely a He. And is not a she.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Never is such a monarch legitimate.
COMMENT FROM LEO - "Consider CW's novels The Shadows of Ecstasy and All Hallows Eve. Both suppose the possible rise of a religious and political leader who is neither Christian nor [the other major monotheism], but who is charismatic. Both fail in the end."
Indeed - a dictator, in modern terminology - and also an evil dictator whose primary motivation is exploitation and destruction. I don't think these polities last more than about a generation or maybe two: at the least they must ally with a strong state religion.
@John R - John Knox as an authority? - I don't think so... But it is manifestly false. A king should be the norm, but there is more than one example of an exceptional but effective/ good Queen to refute the proposition.
@Chent - Sorry, that isn't something I am prepared to discuss in the public domain. But my views on Christianity constitute about 50% of this blog.
I am waiting for that Christian monarch and I know that he will someday return. There is a good king sleeping. The West knows that a monarch is coming. Maybe that is the collective unconscious feeling the return of our true king or maybe it is the good Christian ruler that will save us from ourselves and our enemies in this world.
It is curious that the imagery of the sleeping king is in many western nations.
A good Queen would still be, in a sense, still a patriarchy as she would be the professed and humble servant of God the Father and Jesus Christ as Lord. A good mother can well rule her sons even if the father has passed on.
Arguing whether or a bad man or a bad female would be able to make the worst sort of ruler seems pointless!
As God does not force Himself on an unwilling people, but instead waits for us to repent and ask His aid, a good King cannot well rule a bad people (e.g. the example of what happened to our Saviour himself).
@Don - I know what you mean - but a Christian King *must* have a Christian people. Christianity can't be imposed top-down without ceasing to be itself. But if/ when he has a people, the king can/ will come.
There could be a leader who leads his people to Christianity. Many countries had that first monarch who decided to be a Christian. While the west is scattered now and the elites are squeezing the middle from both ends the elites are also creating new peoples. People are waking up and realizing that they have been lied to.
There are real nations. Real peoples with real histories. The harder the transnationals and multiculturals push the more obvious their lies become. We are not a Christian nation but we are not a post-Christian nation yet. We are transitioning.
It would take one man to lead the way. Can you imagine the response if one leader stepped up and was publicly baptized? Who said, "Follow me."
I could imagine that happy eventuality in, say, Hungary, Poland, maybe even Russia; but not in the EU(even though Poland, Hungary are in the EU),
Canada, or the US.
I understand. And I apologize for asking. I thought a comparison from you would be insightful. But I fully understand
@Chent - Thank you.
Post a Comment