"I hope and expect that long after we've rejected the tyranny of modern democracy, we'll still have a King or Queen to rule us in accordance with God's law and pattern."

I wonder if you could elaborate on this. I think I am broadly sympathetic but haven't really given it much thought.

Does the argument go something along the lines of monarchy, while being ordained for God's people, is nevertheless God's law and appropriate to be obeyed by all people, believers or not (like not committing murder)?

Daniel

P.S. Not that we're in a democracy, anyway, in either the UK or the US. We don't make the decisions. We elect the people who make the decisions.

Not that we're in a democracy, anyway, in either the UK or the US. We don't make the decisions. We elect the people who make the decisions.

Exactly. That's why I call it the tyranny of modern democracy.

It's not a completely thought out position but it seems to me that kings are part of the way God made the world to help us better understand his character as our king to whom we are subject. We're not participants in a democracy with God, we're his subjects who are required to give him loyalty and obedience.

Obviously this is not to say that all kings or queens are good. Nor that there are no circumstances in which the tyrant should be overthrown. Just that as a model of government, the benevolent dictator strikes me as biblically and theologically superior.

And why do I expect that we'll return to this (if it is better)? Because in the coming gospel age we'll see its triumph in every area of society, transforming governments as it transforms individuals.

Ros, isn't there some stuff towards the front of the Bible somewhere about having God as your king and having a human king or not?

Yes.

I was gonna say what Marc said - I don't think that monarchies were the way God planned for us to rule our countries.

Do you not think that something needs to change though? The monarchy system doesn't fit with the retirement age rules that working society follows. The role of the monarchy surely has to change if we are to be appointing octagenarians as our leaders? What a change from the times when teenagers became kings or queens (not to mention Good King Josiah!)

Rach, or perhaps "the retirement age rules that working society follows" need to change?

There is quite a lot of stuff in the Bible about the wisdom that comes with age and about honouring one's elders that makes me think it's entirely appropriate for us to have old monarchs. If the King/Queen is incapacitated due to ill health/old age, then I think it's fine to appoint a Regent but to force them to abdicate seems to me to set a dangerous precedent.

Oh and I don't think that the Bible talks about retirement at all. So perhaps we shouldn't let those modern assumptions drive our thinking?

True, retirement is perhaps not a biblical principle. Does it not tell us to look after the elderly in the communities though (or is that just widows?)

So much to say! You may enjoy http://www.davidpfield.com/published-articles/Rutherford-put-not.htm
David Field's summary of Rutherford's argument for 'democracy'. I think DPF is in favour of democracy (obviously not in its current European form) as the favoured form of government, though I am yet to be persuaded.

Incidentally, I disagree with Daniel and Ros about the cause of modern democratic tyranny. It is precisely because the ignorant majority has too much say that we are subjected to tyranny. The best democracies in history are the more representative ones, precisely where you elect wise men to govern for you, and make the decisions you're not equipped to. That's why an hereditary House of Lords full of generations of accumulated wisdom and landowning (important, yes, Ros?) was so much better than the current shambles!