God Doesn't Want a King

But they will get one anyway

If you’re already subscribed, tap the button below to share Future Xian with someone else.

They Want a King

The conversation probably went something like this¹:

Samuel: Hey, God! Um… you’re late.

God: Yeah. No. Sorry. I’ve kinda got a lot going on. I actually meant to be early. Your message intrigued me to say the least: “The people want a king?” Is this true?

Samuel: Wow. Cut right to the chase… By the way, I took the liberty of getting you a latte. Thought you might like to try the Pumpkin Spice. And it’s non-dairy. Kosher, of course.

God: That’s very thoughtful. Very thoughtful. Mmm… and smells heavenly.

Samuel: Right. So… about the king. At the elders meeting, they called me out. Some of them said I’m getting too old and others said my sons are corrupt. Sadly, I can’t really argue with them. The whole ‘community leadership’ plan with you at the top isn’t exactly working as planned. It turns out, they want a king they can actually see.

God: Is that… cardamom?

Samuel: What?

God: I’ll never understand why they don’t just focus on the cinnamon. Cinnamon is central. Everything else—nutmeg, cloves, cardamom—it’s all secondary. Pumpkin spice it not a difficult concept. Am I right?

Samuel: Um… they do have a cinnamon latte. I should’ve just gotten you… never mind. My point is, even in the best of times, when the judges were subduing our enemies, the prophets were clear in communicating your words, and the priests were making the appropriate sacrifices, the people still weren’t satisfied.

God: Sure. You know, it takes enormous effort for a community to govern together. And since I’m invisible, they need to have a lot of trust in my representatives. Looks like that trust isn’t always earned! Having a human king would be easier in some ways. But, trust me, they don’t want a human king.

Samuel: I am with you one-hundred percent. I’m just finding it difficult to communicate why having a human king is such a bad idea. All the other nations have one. Maybe if you could share some of your specific thoughts on why kings are to be avoided, that would help me get the message across.

God: Oh, God. Where do I start… Well, it’s always a good idea to let history be your guide…

Samuel: I’m listening…

God: The first bad king that comes to mind is King John, known broadly as England’s worst king. He was greedy and incompetent. He was also quite cruel to his opponents, choosing to imprison and sometimes even kill them. For example, his nephew, Arthur of Brittany had a strong hereditary claim to the throne, so what did John do? He locked Arthur up in a castle. Likely murdered him, too. In addition, many nobles were mad about John’s abuses of power and when they rebelled, he locked them up, too. King John also systematically took more hostages than any prior king of England. He extorted rebel barons by imprisoning their wives and children, sometimes leaving them to starve. In some cases, he executed them.

Samuel: Never heard of him.

God: Oh, here’s a good one: Ivan IV of Russia, also known as “Ivan the Terrible.” Name kind of says it all, right?

Samuel: Sounds truly bad.

God: He was a tyrant. He did many horrible things, most of which were a result of his paranoia that the nobility surrounding him were plotting a coup. As a result, he created the Oprichnina, his secret police, who would spy on citizens and punish anyone who opposed Ivan’s government or showed any disloyalty. The agents, called Oprichniki, dressed in black, rode black horses, and carried dog heads on their saddles, a symbol of ‘sniffing out’ Ivan’s enemies. Aside from their terrifying appearance, they also used torture and mass killings to intimidate the people.

Samuel: That’s horrible!

God: Indeed. And I’ve spared you the goriest details.

Samuel: Well, thanks for that. Let me stop you there, though. I’ve never heard of those kings. John? Ivan?

God: Ahhhh… yes. Sorry. Sometimes I forget about the linear nature of time from a human perspective. Those guys actually arrive later history.

Samuel: I don’t understand.

God: What I mean is, those things I described haven’t happened yet. You know, ‘cause I’m outside of time and all? It’s not really as sci-fi as it sounds. I just see it all at once.

Samuel: Right. I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it. But you’re saying they were (are?) real kings who really committed those awful atrocities?

God: YES. It’s all part of history. Or… the future. Whatever you want to call it…

Samuel: Anything a little closer to home?

God: Hmmm. Well, let’s see… Ah yes! How about China? Qin Er Shi inherited an empire with huge potential, however, his incompetence and paranoia played a major role in its collapse. That was, er… around 250 before the Christian Era.

Samuel: Christian Era?

God: Darn it! That’s right, you’re late Bronze Age. You know what? The timing doesn’t matter. Here’s the bottom line: humans can’t handle monarchy. By the way, did you know that word derives from the combination of the Greek terms mónos (single) and árchon (ruler).

Samuel: Greek?

God: No matter what you call them—monarchs, authoritarians, dictators, kings—sole rulers have never been able to resist the lures of riches and power, and the vices of pride and greed. Even when these kings haven’t gone mad or aren’t mentally ill, they still tend to act in the interest of numero uno. That’s Italian, by the way.

Samuel: This is so compelling. I wonder if you’d be free to attend the elders meeting tonight. I have a feeling you could really change some minds.

God: You know, I wish I could, but later this evening I’ll be doing some work in 2025 where the latest wanna-be royal is wreaking havoc. But you can trust that I’ll be at your meeting in Spirit.

Samuel: Thanks, God.

God: Can I give you one last piece of advice?

Samuel: Please.

God: Just give the people what they want. They want a king? Give them a king.

Samuel: But… you just spent the last 30 minutes telling me how bad kings are!

God: Sometimes people just need to see for themselves how bad things can get before they will listen. It’s another human flaw. Maybe their worst. Let Israel have their monarch, then we’ll see how long it takes for them to realize what they’ve really asked for is a tyrant.

Samuel: Well, if you say so. After all, you’re the King!

---

King of America

There are a lot of differences between the situation of Israel on the cusp of monarchy, and our situation—not the least of which is the fact that I’m not sure anyone in America today is actually saying, “I want a king!” And yet, right before our eyes, our elected leader is becoming more like a monarch with every passing news cycle.²

He has his “court” of enablers, Richelieus and Rasputins so-to-speak, who not only want to see him crowned a “king” of sorts, but who also have aspirations to become authoritarians themselves, whenever the current one becomes weak enough to depose.

This all feels dangerous to me. And yet, many people hear the facts and shrug their shoulders, like it’s business as usual. Most figure that in a little over three years, we’ll have the chance to elect someone else. Will we? It seems a little crazy and alarmist to suggest that a real king is currently arising in our midst. Or does it?

At least seven million people felt like it was worthwhile to stop what they were doing on a precious Sunday several weeks ago and gather in hundreds of cities across the U.S. to hold up clever signs, the messages of which all might be boiled down to: “We don’t want a king!”

Meanwhile, the actions of contemporary Christian Nationalists are like a silent echo of the ancient Israelites’ declaration. From the Supreme Court granting immunity to the President, to the weaponization of the Justice Department—not to mention the complicit and deafening silence of the GOP—the call for a king in America has perhaps never been so loud and clear.

1. Loosely based on 1 Samuel, chapter 8.

2. It’s worth pointing out that Israel at the time was a theocracy in which God was effectively the invisible king, with a variety of community leaders (judges, prophets, priests) who ran the system of government. It was not even close to modern republic or democracy.