“There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden” sang Bob Dylan back in1967, at the height of that decade’s idealism and optimism. In an ideal world there would be no need for kings or rulers of any kind. People would cooperate, not compete; they would be ruled by wisdom and reason, live together in peace and love, and the divisions and prejudices of race and nation, religion and class would be no more. Eden is the best of all possible worlds, except that it is, in all probability, impossible.
The reality is the many and various attempts to establish a way for people to live together in an ordered and, with any luck, tolerable society. Without luck, though, you are liable to end up in the anarchy of a failed state, in a tin-pot dictatorship or in an all-powerful oppressive state with little time for democracy or human rights. Ironically enough, in the modern world this has little to do with whether a country is a monarchy or a republic. Indeed, these terms are pretty much anachronisms today.
The dictionary definition of a republic begins, “a state in which supreme power is held by the people or its elected representatives.” That is to say, a democracy, democracy being the only authentic way in which a “people or its elected representatives” can exercise their “supreme power”. Although the definition adds that power may be held by an “elected or nominated president,” the democratic principle holds good. Only by the choice and will of the people can political power be held and exercised legitimately. There was a time when kings ruled, or so they claimed, by “divine right” – appointed by God and ruling by a devolved divine authority. That idea has disappeared completely in most if not all surviving monarchies. That is certainly the case in Europe. In fact the constitutional monarchies of Europe are de facto republics according to that dictionary definition, and that includes the United Kingdom.
So are there still any true monarchies, ‘monarchy’ meaning –going back to the word’s Greek roots - rule by one person? Well, of course there are – most of them masquerading as republics. Examples that spring to mind are China, Russia, Iran, Belarus and others of similar ilk. Perhaps the most egregious example is North Korea, which is not only a de facto monarchy, it is a de facto hereditary monarchy. There are true republics, of course – democratic states with elected presidents who have limited powers and terms of office – but these have their problems too, as we have seen recently in France, Israel and the United States. Perhaps the lesson is that even democratic systems, be they genuine republics or constitutional monarchies, fall very far short of that ideal world “inside the Gates of Eden”. But as Winston Churchill famously observed, “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
But does any of this have religious or spiritual significance? Yesterday’s coronation in Westminster Abbey certainly implied that our constitutional monarchy has a religious, indeed Christian, basis. And one welcome innovation was an acknowledgement that other faiths are part of our country’s body politic too. Thus the coronation oath taken by the King, included the pledge “to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely.” And the ceremony also had the representatives of faiths other than Christianity making this affirmation to the King: “as neighbours in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service. We unite with people of all faiths and beliefs in thanksgiving and in service with you for the common good.” There can be no doubt that these elements were added to the more traditional material as the direct result of the King’s commitment to be, as he once put it, the “defender of faith” rather than just “defender of the faith”, a term with a rather strange and contradictory history! We might even claim, if we were so inclined, that the King’s commitment to a liberal and inclusive Christianity follows a path pioneered by Unitarians! As far as I know, though, he has only once visited a Unitarian church.
But did the coronation service, magnificent though it was as a spectacle of pageantry and tradition, have any real connection to the figure of Jesus? Although there is a cult of “Christ the King” I don’t see in the Jesus of the Gospels a man who aspired to kingship in the usual worldly sense. He valued and exhibited humility and befriended the “wretched of the earth”, those despised and marginalised by the privileged and powerful in the religious, political and social establishment. Not that the Jewish nation and religion of which he was a member was without its traditions of monarchy. Indeed we were reminded of this in yesterday’s coronation, most forcibly – for me, at any rate – in Handel’s magnificent anthem, ‘Zadok the Priest’. This derives from the First Book of Kings, where we read that the dying King David ordered Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet to anoint his son, Solomon, as the new King of Israel. And this was done, it is declared, with the full approval of Israel’s God. As one of Solomon’s key supporters, Benaiah, puts it, “As the LORD hath been with my lord the king, even so be he with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David” (I Kings 1: 17).
David was Israel’s second king and arguably it’s greatest, but he had his moral flaws, which is why God wouldn’t let him build the Temple in Jerusalem, a task that was left to Solomon. Nevertheless, there were those who didn’t think that Israel should have a man – a human being that is - as its king at all, and that their God – Yahweh – was all the king they needed or should have. This explains the rather confused foundations of Israel’s monarchy. The story is told in the First Book of Samuel. Up to that point Israel had been a loose tribal confederation with no central authority. Instead, when common action was needed – usually for military purposes – some charismatic figure, called a Judge, would emerge to lead them in united action. A time came when this system was failing and so – in an echo of Aesop’s story about the frogs – the “elders of Israel” demanded of Samuel the prophet, “make us a king to judge us like all the nations,” and to “go out before us and fight our battles.” Neither Samuel nor Yahweh wanted to do this, and the elders were warned of the tyranny and dictatorship that having a king would mean. But the Israelites were insistent and in the end Yahweh told Samuel, “Hearken unto their voice and make them a king.” With this less than enthusiastic endorsement, a man named Saul was anointed by Samuel as Israel’s first king. He was less than a resounding success, though, and on his death in battle he was succeeded by David.
So began the story of the kings of Israel and of Judah, which ended disastrously in division, defeat, exile and subjection. But many Israelites, many Jews, longed for a restored kingdom on the lines of David’s short-lived empire. The prophet Zechariah, living in exile during Israel’s eclipse, was one of these, as his pronouncements bear out. This meant that great expectations came to rest on anyone who claimed, or appeared, to be a likely candidate for king. Some were more likely than others, but for many Jesus fitted the bill. What did he think? Who knows? But his entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, “lowly, and riding upon an ass”, in apparent fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy (9:9-10), was proof enough for the excited Passover crowds. It was a clear reminder of what was said by the dying David about Solomon: “cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule”, which Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah see is done. We are told that “they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon” (I Kings 1: 39), which may be is why we still sing ‘God save the King’ today. But if Jesus made any claim to be a king it was a very different sort of king to Solomon, who, “in all his glory” as Jesus himself said, “was not arrayed” as beautifully as “the lilies of the field” (Matthew 7: 28-29).
Quite why Solomon rode a mule and not a war-horse or a lofty camel is not explained, other than that it had been David’s, but its lowliness and the humility of the kingly rider is what Zechariah picks up on and what Jesus seems to be saying by his own ride. It is an ideal of kingship more in tune with his teachings: “I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace to the nations” (Zechariah 9: 10).
It may be that Charles III, as a constitutional monarch, has no power to make war or even to prevent it – today that lies in the hands of others – but he has influence and I hope and believe that he will exercise that influence in line with the ideals of Zechariah’s humble king, speaking peace to the nations and to the earth itself. Let us support him in doing so. We may remain forever outside the Gates of Eden but the vision of what lies within can still inspire us, whatever our worldly status.