Anarchy in the UK

In the Old Testament the book of Kings tells the history of the different kings that ruled the nation of Israel (beginning from Saul, who was the first king, and ending several hundred years later with Zechariah, who was the last king).

The introduction of a king ended up dividing Israel into two kingdoms.  There was the kingdom of Judah in the south (2 tribes) and the kingdom of Israel in the north (10 tribes).

This division of the Kingdom demonstrates that worldly kings are not able to unite a nation.  On the contrary they cause division.

None of these kings were perfect.  Some were better than others, but they all had flaws.

It was not really God's will for the nation of Israel to have a king.

Moses was not a king, he was a prophet, the mouth-piece of God.  But on reaching the Promised Land, some 40 years after Moses had led them out of Egypt where they had been enslaved for 400 years, Israel envied the other nations around them that had kings, and they asked God for a king.

Saul was the first king.  David succeeded Saul.  Then followed Solomon, and then his son, Rehoboam.  It was at this point that the kingdom divided in two.

David was a flawed individual.  For example, he committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged for her husband, Uriah, to be placed at the front of a very fierce battle so that he would likely get killed, and he did.

Despite his flaws, David is considered to be the best king of them all, and ever since King David, Israel looked back at his reign as the Golden Age, and looked forward to a new Golden Age when another king like David will reign, a son of David.

Christians believe this person eventually arrives several hundred year later.  His name is Jesus Christ.

But Jesus was not the kind of king that Jewish Israel was expecting.  Jewish Israel was expecting a worldly king, but Jesus said 'my kingdom is not of this world'.

As the story goes, Jesus was not flawed like all the other kings.  He was a perfect person, there was no sin in him.  His sword was not a physical weapon.  His goal was unity.

So the message for me from this is that all kings and political leaders are flawed people, sinful individuals.

'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Romans 6:23).

A nation may put up a monument to remember their political leaders, because they were significant movers of history.  

"The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power." - Tolstoy

There is nothing new under the sun

"The works of the contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century are still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, emphasising particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office.

The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality. The ‘pop’ singers of Baghdad accompanied their erotic songs on the lute, an instrument resembling the modern guitar. In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age. Several khalifs issued orders banning ‘pop’ singers from the capital, but within a few years they always returned.

An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men... Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed."

from page 15, The Fate of Empires, by Sir John Glubb:

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

'There is nothing new under the sun' - Ecclesiastes 1:9