[Below are two versions of a column I've just written for the Community Press newspaper chain. The first is the original version, the second is the edited version submitted to the editor. Such editing was necessary in order to keep the article within a usable word count for the paper. Think of the first as the album version and the second as the radio play single.]
A Farewell to Kings
In the old Mel Brooks movie, A History of the World, Part I, a goofy ruler played by Brooks repeats the line, "It's good to be the king."
Most of us probably would agree. And some who achieve even what would be considered small successes in life may see themselves as kings of a sort. Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, deals with the pitfalls of Wall Street hubris. Its central character, taking his cue from a popular line of toys from the 80s, fancies himself as "Master of the universe."
It may be though, that we not only want to be kings, but also want to have kings...and queens. As an old-fashioned American who believes in the idea of the republic, that leaders ought to emerge from the people by merit and not by heredity, and that our forebears were wise to cut the chain that once shackled us to King George III, I'm appalled and mystified by our country's fascination with the British royal family. To me, the Windsors are a self-indulgent and undistinguished lot, the world's foremost and least worthy welfare recipients.
In his most recent book, conservative commentator Kevin Phillips points with alarm not only to the western world's obsession with royalty, but also its increasing penchant for enthroning and re-enthroning royals in varying fields of endeavor.
In Europe, once-deposed royals are being invited back to their countries, part of an effort to re-establish aristocracy, it seems.
In America, we have hereditary royal families in motion pictures with names like Douglas, Hawn-Winslet, Barrymore, Huston, Bridges, and Coppola (which includes Nicholas Cage).
We have royals like the Kennedy, Bush, Gore, Taft, and Clinton families in politics.
In music, the one-time "king of pop" married the daughter of "the King" in hopes of establishing a royal line.
And in what is arguably the A-list of American royalty, sports, names like Bonds, Winslow, Griffey, Manning, and Boone recur.
We also applaud and are fascinated by the sons and daughters of the rich and famous, not because they do anything, except behave badly. Witness, the Hilton girls.
None of this is to say that the heirs of great success are unworthy of the opportunity to cultivate their native gifts in the same fields in which their parents and grandparents excelled. Jeff Bridges is a great actor, Bobby Bonds is a tremendous baseball player, and George W. Bush is a more facile politician than his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather.
But we clearly give more opportunity to the heirs of American royalty than we do to other people.
And, I think that we derive a certain security and comfort from our royalty. They give us a sense of stability. We speak appreciatively of the "good genes," a supposed intrinsic talent for playing a scene, hitting a baseball, or governing a country.
Apart from the fact that such notions are all rot, we need to be careful about the amount of acclaim or power we give to other human beings.
In the Old Testament portion of the Bible, God's people the Israelites, craved an earthly king to rule over them. All the other countries in the neighborhood had kings and the Israelites thought it would make them powerful and important to have one too. God didn't want to name a king for them. "I am your king!" God insisted. The people repented for a time, but soon started whining again. Finally, as if to show the people how misguided they were, God gave them a king, a man named Saul.
Saul had movie star good looks and a Mr. Universe build. But he soon started believing he was every bit as wonderful as the sycophants around him said he was. He became disastrously self-indulgent and his rule ended in disappointment and tragedy.
Of course, we need leaders. Somebody has to direct every human endeavor, from keeping our roads paved to guarding our homeland.
But our "kings" would do well to remember that whatever their areas of leadership, they're on temporary assignments. And they might also remember that the best leader is, above all, a servant.
Of course, the absolute master of service is God in the flesh, Jesus Christ. He came into the world, He said, to serve. And He did that, all the way to a cross where He bore the punishment for our sins, even though He didn't deserve it. He also said that if we were going to follow Him in this life and into the eternity He opens to all with faith in Him, we had to spurn the world's love for kingship. He said that in the end, the last will be first and the first will be last.
We don't need kings and we don't need to be kings. The world already has a king. He's a humble servant who only wants what's best for us and when we trust Him, grants it to us. He's the God we know through Jesus and if we all volunteered to live under His reign, the world and our personal lives would be the better for it.
A Farewell to Kings, the Column Version
In a movie comedy, a goofy ruler repeatedly delivers a signature line: "It's good to be king."
Most of us probably agree. But it seems to me that we want to have kings as much as we want to be kings.
Throughout the world, there is a mystifying fascination with the wealthy and severely dysfunctional British royal family, for example.
In Europe, once-deposed royals are being invited back to their countries.
In America, royal families reign in various fields. Succeeding generations seem to effortlessly fall heir to the power, influence, and acclaim wielded by their forebears. It happens in such diverse fields as the movies, sports, and politics, where the same names crop up repeatedly.
It may be that every member of these royal lines has been worthy of the opportunities given to them. But we clearly give more opportunities to the heirs of American royalty than we do to other people.
We also seem to derive a certain comfort from our royal families. It makes us feel good to see familiar faces with familiar gestures and intonations of voice. We even speak appreciatively of our royals' "good genes," imagining that they are automatically predisposed to play a scene, hit a baseball, or govern a country.
Such notions are all rot. They come close to advocating the permanent class systems from which the west broke during the Renaissance. Worse yet, they smell suspiciously like Hitler's notions of a master race.
We may inherit talents, but talents grow in the hothouse of work and struggle, not in the air conditioned comfort of a speeding limo.
We need to be careful about who we enthrone as kings. In the Old Testament portion of the Bible, God's people the Israelites, craved an earthly king to rule over them. Other countries had kings. The Israelites thought it would make them powerful and important to have one too.
But God didn't want to name a king for them. "I am your king!" God insisted. The people repented for a time, but started whining again. Finally, as if to show the people how misguided they were, God gave them a king, a man named Saul.
Saul had movie star good looks and a Mr. Universe build. But he soon started believing he was as wonderful as the suck-ups around him said he was. He became self-indulgent and his rule ended in disappointment and tragedy.
Of course, we need leaders. Somebody has to direct every human endeavor.
But all "kings" in positions of leadership need to remember that they're on temporary assignments. And they might also remember that the best leader is, above all, a servant, not a royal.
Of course, the master of servant leadership is God in the flesh, Jesus Christ. He came into the world, He said, to serve. And He served all the way to a cross where He bore the punishment for our sins, even though He didn't deserve punishment.
Jesus says that if we are going to follow Him in this life and into the eternity He opens to all with faith in Him, we must spurn the world's love for kingship and become servants too.
We don't need more kings and we don't need to be kings. The world already has a king. He's the God we know through Jesus and if we all volunteered to live under His reign, the world and our personal lives would be the better for it.
