The Queen is now with her King of Kings: Snippets of learning more about honour dynamics amidst the death of Her Majesty - Snippet 7

photo credit

This is the last in a series of  'snippets' from the honour contexts being heard in responses and reporting surrounding the world's mourning and memories of the late Queen Elizabeth II  (7 in total - 1 for each decade of her 70 year reign 😊)

SNIPPET 7

It is surprising in some ways that the Queen's death was even headline news in the USA - where back in 1776 they had very deliberately left monarchy behind.  

Folks in the USA were not only observing, they were interested, and fascinated. 

But their comments and questions revealed a great deal about the differences between living in a land with a monarchy and living in a land that had intentionally rejected monarchy as part of their Declaration of Independence. In 1776 with 27 grievances against King George III the 13 colonies at the time declared : 'That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown'. But in so doing, they began a new way of governance totally devoid of all reference to monarchy. 

Yet the Queen's death seemed to prompt them to think more deeply about the differences between their system of governance and the monarchy of the UK. 

Let's first look a little and learn from what has been noticed about a monarchy by those who look on from a land that rejected monarchy, who went a different way, and now wishes to ponder or explore more of its significance, because what I see emerging is that even if we 'try' to reject monarchy, the concept of monarchy—to have a King—is embedded in our human DNA…....

Even if the USA rejected monarchy and Americans are thus not supposed to care too much about the Queen's death, they began to wonder if they 'should care' as Fox News podcast presenter Will Cain said:  

'I feel like as a birthright of the revolution I shouldn't have to care about the monarchy…that my forefathers died and won a war so that I could care more about Texas Alabama on this Saturday than the monarchy in England…but I do feel, and I think you helped highlight this in a conversation we had this weekend that I should appreciate the value of constancy and tradition that is represented in the monarchy and should be marked with the passing of the Queen and ascension of the King. Why should I care?'

Douglas Murray, who Will Cain was interviewing about British monarchy vs American Oligarchy, commented that in addition to the Queen being like a last public figure link to the era of bravery and courage to fight for virtue which epitomised those fighting against the Nazi's in WWII:

 "she represented a set of values which I believe many Americans as well as many British people fear have gone from society, ...the value of putting others above yourself, not saying its all about me, not moaning about yourself, Queen Elizabeth's thing she learnt from her mother ' never complain, never explain' . People don't want to hear your complaints. There was a saying in Britain in the past I grew up with 'mustn't grumble' - why should you not grumble, because everyone could grumble, you don't because you will only make other people's days worse. As a young woman she said 'my life whether it be short or long will be dedicated to your service' the service of her country. And this is among many other values she had, including her very deep Christian faith, these are values I think that a lot of people sense we have lost and that she was the last embodiment of those values".

This was similar to what Murray also said in his New York Post article:

That idea — of service — of putting others above yourself, and putting your country above everything but God is an idea that has become unpopular in much of Britain as it has in America. But it is the noblest of ideals: a demonstration of sacrifice and of a lack of self-centeredness. It was at the core of the Queen's being…..The concept of there being something bigger than yourself has been lost on some for the time being at least. Perhaps the Queen's passing will remind them — and all of us — of virtues that we will miss if they are permanently gone.

But in addition to her own personal values, there is the institution of monarchy. 

Some believe that it was only the Queen that people looked up to and not the institution itself, but when in a different interview in the Spectator, he was questioned about the institution itself and asked "why don't Americans understand Britian's monarchy?" Murray explained some of its benefits and how its positives go well beyond just Queen Elizabeth's personal popularity:

'A number of people say there is a problem with the monarchy which is that it seems to be the epitome of unearned privilege. [but] I keep saying to people well, that suggests that unearned privilege is something that is unheard of in America, which is a hard position to hold, and secondly it actually misses something very important…one of the remarkable things of the constitutional monarchy [is]that the inevitable national obsession with dynasties is focused on one dynasty and that one that has lasted more than 1000 years, the institution of the monarchy. 

To a great extent this is a political interest, but it is also to do with an inevitable biological interest which is our interest in watching genes play out, our interest in watching generation after generation of family—Where are the black sheep? Who are the bad eggs? Who are the people who really are the inheritors of the great figures of the past? and much more,….

But nationally, [on the UK] that obsession focuses solely on the institution of the monarchy. 

We don't have as a result, political dynasties. We don't have that. We have a little bit of it on the political left interestingly enough—the Ben family, Harriet Harmen of the Packenhams, you might say a little bit of millarbandary or….[but] we don't have political dynasties. Nobody is obsessed in Britian as to whether John Major's children are going to come back and save us. Or whether the Blairs are going to run for office again. 

Whereas in America, politics is very dominated by a few dynasties. 

People are obsessed with it. You can go back to the founding in the 19th Century in America to the Adams dynasty in American politics, you can look at the Roosevelts for instance, coming more up to date, the Kennedys. Even more up to date, look at the way in which over the past 25 years it has looked at times like the Presidency is going to rotate between the Clinton family and the Bush family!  

Look at the way people in which have wondered if Michelle Obama  is going to run for office. Is Chelsea Clinton going to run at some point? Are the Bushes going to offer us up a new generation of talent? Even the disrupters in American politics - Donald Trump…is Don junior going to run? 

Think of this is British terms and it seems obsurd. Are the Johnson children being lined up for political office? I would think not. 

One of the many many things that the constitutional monarchy does that is so good, is that it actually detoxifies the political arena from having hereditary electoral politics...As well as providing us with constitutional order and much much more.

Running for the top job in America means you have to able to bundle a lot of money, have a lot of connections nationally across all the states, and you could argue is that what we are really talking about (and this is what one American commentator said to me) is celebrity really. 

In order to run for office in America you need to be famous!…Dr Oz is agood example at the moment. If you are big on television…you can become big in politics. 

There is something in that, but that doesn't explain the dynasties other than they are well placed to bundle money and so on. 

But I think there is something else, I think there is sense that - and this is a very anti-Americocratic sense, there has been a sense that some people know how to rule. 

In Britain we get that out of the way with the house of Windsor. 

In America you just have this sense always there are some people who know how to do it…and how would X know how to do it, they haven't ever been near office. Whereas if people have been near office they somehow might be naturally knowledgeable about how to run the country, I do think it is an odd temptation, an odd inclination…its very anti-Americacratic and yet its wholly America.

In the same interview, it was put to Murray that there had been some American criticism of the British monarchy and accuse them of slavery crimes, but interestingly he highlighted (quoting Andrew Roberts interviewed on CNN) that rather than

'start attacking her late Majesty for the crimes of slavery they should remember it was her very distant ancestor George III who signed the anti-slavery act in 1807, many decades before American had a civil war and had to kill 600000 of its own citizens in order to do away with the vial trade, Britain did away with it peacefully and then policed the high seas for decades at enormous national cost. So I'm afraid what we see in some of the American response to the death of the Queen has been an alarming historic ignorance driven by an alarming present day anamous.'

It is interesting to thus note, that the very King that Americans had their grievances against—King George III—was this very same King who (after perseverance from Christians like William Wilberforce and John Newton) enabled the anti-slavery act long before the USA did anything about it!

Within hours of the Queen's death Jordon Peterson (a Canadian) was due to speak at a public lecture in the UK, and then did a Q&A following, in which he was asked for some thoughts about the death of Queen Elizabeth II. As to be expected, his comments were highly insightful…here are a few excerpts to ponder:

'I'm a great admirer of the constitutional monarchy system, there is a wisdom about it…there are other …monarchy systems still left in Europe but they are a pale reflection of what you've got in the UK...

The thing about the monarchy that is so cool is that in the United States there is the judiciary, the legistlative branch and the executive - that separation of powers  and the checks and balances that are part and parcel of that and that is a great system…and then you also have the States and they have their power against the Federal Government and that stops things from becoming too tryannical in principle. But here [UK]…you have four divisions - you have executive, legistlative, judicial and symbolic. And the monarch holds the symbolic weight and that's really smart because it separates it to some degree from the political weight.

You see what happens in the United States is first of all the President tends to turn into the Tzar, because they have this idea in the United States now like First Lady, what the H*** is that?  We don't have that in Canada. Nobody knows anything about Justin Trudeau's wife, and that's been the history of Canadian politicians, like just because you are Justin Trudeau's wife doesn't mean you're Queen! But in the United States, its like 'well you know, Hilary Clinton, maybe she's queen?'  

And that's partly because there is that demand for the symbolic weight that the leader should manifest. 

You also see that in some degree in the United States which is a star-worshipping culture obviously with the glitterality and royalty of Hollywood. And its better put there …in the entertainment section, even though that is somewhat dangerous as it tends to elevate actors to pronouncers of ethical virtues  but  better there than the political realm. But Trump he is like king and president rolled up into one and that is too much. 

And so I really admire the monarchical system and the UK has done a wonderful job of maintaining that.  ...This tradition that you have here, monarchical tradition…is tremendously attractive to people who don't have that…its is so theatrical, so unique. And then you had Queen Elizabeth…that's quite the woman there….how many 13? prime-ministers? So you had someone around to intimidate all your prime-ministers, that's a really good idea and I'm sure she did a fine job of that.   And you can imagine how useful it was psycologically…for the prime minister who has monarchical temptations in some sense (like Trump did) to have to go on a regular basis to this remarkable person who had seen this immense span of political history, and confess…in some real sense… and be subject to her cautious and wise judgement. Because she was a woman who was traditional and cautious and wise in the highest degree. (There were scandals in her family but you have a family and if people knew what was happening in your family don't you think there would be scandals)…she was remarkably free of scandals over that entire period….that's a h*** of a thing to manage for 70 years.

Not only are Peterson's comments extremely insightful and 'on point', but they along with comments from others help us understand more of what a monarchy is all about, by contrasting it with the 'lack of monarchy'. We see that its about a system that works, but also a person of long-serving integrity that gave her superior knowledge and wisdom above all those under her, especially in her latter years. 

Piers Morgan similarly quoted from a past Canadian Prime-minister who had said something like:

'because she had met almost every interesting person who ever lived in the last 70 years including every world leader, every scientist, every expert, everyone, she had extraordinary wisdom and knowledge that she just amassed over time, which she basically knew a lot about a lot'

Sebastian Milbank summed things up this way in his article 'God save the Queen - Britain will never be the same':

The monarchy has survived in a world that came to reject social hierarchy, deference, aristocracy, tradition and religion. With every force and sensibility turning away from it, the Queen still found ways to connect with ordinary people, to articulate a shared life, and mutely embodied in her conduct what our newly progressive nation no longer wished to hear explicitly articulated…...

And this too is the power of monarchy. It creates a sacred bond between the land we inhabit and the mortal body of the Queen. The life of our country, its sovereignty and laws, are not an abstraction or an agglomeration — it has a place, in the breast of its sovereign, our Queen. In a world of ever more virtual information, in which decisions are rarely made by a single individual, in which accountability is diffused amongst the chaos of vast, inhuman systems, this is a rare and precious thing.

One American lady interviewed who was waiting along the coffin procession route from Buckingham Palace said:

'There's not a single person in America, not a politician, not a notable [person] that I would have waited in the rain for hours to watch go by. The fact that I'm an American in the street in the rain waiting for your Queen to go by is….we don't have anything like this. It's a connection to history that you have, we really don't. Now we are struggling with our politics. We don't have anything 'above it'! 

SELAH - PAUSE TO PONDER

What emerges here, is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt hunger for a certain type/style of governance. We want a ruler to whom we give honour, but in the context of family, of belonging.

We naturally gravitate to form some kind of governance reflective of the governance we were created to have by God as King as part of his Kingdom family. On an earthly level that gets reflected in monarchy, and it has been particularly reflected in a long-reigning Godly Queen.

Some might say monarchy has too many opportunities for tyranny if the ruler/King/Queen is 'bad'. And so that may be. But there are also many opportunities for good through monarchy. Yes a presidential style democratic republic with certain terms and conditions might have some inbuilt safeguards (like the people being able to vote out a leader who becomes corrupt), but it relies on the people not being corrupt or corruptible and assumes the 'people' who elected such a leader will have enough of a mind-change or social-shift to then want to vote him out.  Living in Africa where the system of 'Chiefs' (aka Kings) is all around me, there are problems with having monarchy, but there are also benefits of monarchy.

So we can have benefits or problems with either type of governance, and much depends on where the hearts of the leaders and people are at in relation to God as to how the country's governance goes.

Britain, however, as Jordon Peterson so ably articulated, has a system that has tried to take the best of both systems (monarchy and parliament) and meshed them together. No earthly system is perfect and can be abused, but an earthly system that does not walk in step with how God made us to function is maybe likely to have more problems than first realised….not just in how society functions, but how Christians understand their Kingdom identity.

As Millbank mentioned, Monarchy brings 'life' to 'law' because governance is given 'personhood' that endures - yes in different people over generations, but in continuance of the same family over centuries. It brings something greater than just the law. Law is so much the focus of Republics that there develops a lack of anything being over and higher than the law. The 'system' produces the temporary leader (person) rather than the person (monarch) producing the system (constitutional monarchy and thus laws).

For example, in a monarchy that has a parliament, the parliament functions as the servant or 'arm' of the monarch. The monarch is not voted in by the people or the people's representatives in the parliament. This brings laws in connection with a lawgiver who is above the law and above the people, rather than seeing laws as something abstract that just keeps in step with whatever the majority of the populous wants whether it is good or not. As Jordon Peterson alluded to, this has become more 'symbolic' in the UK, but the 'symbol' is still there. 

But we also see that the 'person' (monarch) greatly influences how the system fleshes out and is viewed by the people. There is a monarchy system, but there is the person of the monarch which has been spoken about often in regard to the person and character of the Queen. People have commented on the length of her reign and the knowledge that gave her, which meant she didn't just have superiority in her position, but in her endurance and time. People continue to stand in amazement that she was the constant while so many other changes occurred in history, in Prime-ministers, in Presidents. This just reveals how much human beings are looking for and value a 'constant', someone who has the wisdom of time and experience beyond their own small corner. There is a sense of safety and trust in someone who is 'always there' with continual encouragement and stability amidst the turbulence of life. 

So many have mentioned that her first speech as a young girl was to 'be there' for her people and encourage them, and then one of her final speeches in COVID times was to 'be there' for her people and encourage them with hope and love.

Like having a father helps us learn how to relate to our Heavenly Father, having a monarch helps us understand just a little how to relate to God as King, and to recognise we need God as King. It helps us begin to understand what it means that the gospel is a gospel of the 'Kingdom of God'. And as I mentioned back in Snippet #1, it has been recognised by some American theologians (eg Schreiner, 2018:134; Mayhue 2012:67) that a lack of - and intentional rejection of - monarchy has meant that American theology has grown in a social cultural context of that rejection of monarchy which has not been helpful and has maybe contributed to a lack of a well developed theology of the Kingdom of God for Americans…because a Kingdom functions under a King. 

This has implications for the 'flavour' (or should we say 'lack of Kingdom flavour') of what comes out of the USA in terms of Christian literature (from devotional books to theological textbooks and commentaries and study-bibles), media, pastor's training and church teaching and focus and discipleship in general.

This then has further implications for what is taken around the world in missions as well….and often to countries and cultures where monarchy (in the form of 'chiefs') is part and parcel of society. This might mean that not only might such literature and teaching and media not bring a well formed biblical theology of Kingdom, (or might neglect it altogether), but it will also miss the opportunity of connecting gospel truth with concepts that such cultures already have embedded and ready to understand such transforming Kingdom gospel truths. But if such biblical Kingdom truths are not even brought or taught then such transformation of cultural kingdom concepts is omitted. 

Could this have something to do with the rise in celebrity and prosperity focused Christianity that has flooded Africa?…particularly in the years since WWII when Britain struggled to recover from the devastation of the war and didn't maybe send as many missionaries or pump out at much Christian literature and media. The USA church certainly filled a great part of that 'gap' and mission growth is said to have been rapidly from the USA side after the killing of the 5 missionary men (including Jim Elliot) in Ecuador in 1956 (see the movie End of the Spear for the story)…but without realising it, was there something in the way the gospel was brought and taught that unconsciously reflected more of the USA cultural system of governance, and cultural desire of achieved honour through celebrity and prosperity after rejecting ascribed honour through monarchical family?

MMMmmmm….food for thought!...

In conclusion...

We need someone 'bigger' than us and 'above' the politics and politicians that rule our world, who has wisdom, who has seen and knows more than we do, who is constant, unruffled and calm, and brings hope. 

Ultimately, this reminds us that above all we need God…we need God as our ultimate King, our King of Kings. We yearn for the One who is peace in the storm, who endures forever, who never changes even in changing times, who brings encouragement when we need it, who isn't leading just to please people and win votes, who feels like a loving head of a family, who keeps leaders in check, who keeps confidences etc etc. 

Queen Elizabeth allowed her Lord to use her for his glory, to shine through her to the world and give us just a tiny taste of some elements of the Kingly rule God is meant to have in our lives. She was an example of Jesus' light shining to a dark world and the world being attracted to that light…and in her earthly position God has given us a glimpse of all He wants to be for us as our King.  

But, she most of all, would say, that she was not the hope of the world, but rather she would want people to be pointed to the One who was the source of her hope, Jesus Christ…which on the one occasion of her Christmas speech each year when she was able to voice her opinion and views, she took the opportunity to constantly point people to Christ. She didn't (as I have often heard in Presidential speeches) report all that she has done and given to people, but wanted her people and the world to know God and what He has given us in Jesus Christ.

Let us not forget the life of Queen Elizabeth, let us not forget her example and her character, but also let us not forget Kingdom realities, what we can learn from understanding monarchical governance, and ultimately that people of this world need God in Christ as their King of Kings!