ok let's get this party started... :)
If we are going to examine the responsibilities of Christian kings and leaders, I think a good place to begin is the first man anointed king over Israel, Saul.
and while a thorough reading of his whole story is encouraged, I'm going to concentrate here on 1 Sam:15
in vs 3 Samuel gives Saul this instruction from the Lord: Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses
and so Saul gathers his army and attacks and destroys Amalek, he takes their king, Agag captive and he and his man take the best of Amaleks goods (sheep,oxen, lambs) for themselves.
afterwards when Samuel goes to find Saul, Saul is all proud of himself and boasts to Samuel : "The LORD bless you! I have kept the command of the LORD." (v 13)
but Samuel will have none of it... and says why then do I hear the sound of these sheep and oxen?... and Saul tells him that they have saved these to offer as sacrifice to the Lord...
Samuel, after reminding Saul that it was the Lord, who made him king says this in v19
Why then have you disobeyed the LORD? You have pounced on the spoil, thus displeasing the LORD?
Does Saul repent in response? No , he again tries to justify his actions.... I did do the Lord's will... the men just saved some of the livestock for sacrifices .
not just trying to justify himself, but also to shift the responsibility to his men...
So what then does Samuel then say? Is partial obedience enough? Is it the fault of Saul's men? No...
...Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission than the fat of rams...Because you have rejected the command of the LORD, he, too, has rejected you as ruler. vs 22-23
A couple of things I note here.. first , that the responsibility for disobedience is placed squarely on Saul, as king, and not on his men.
Also it seems clear to me, that public acts of piety and worship are less important than (complete) obedience to God.
Finally Saul get it that he has screwed up (or has he?) He blames his actions on 'fear of the people' and asks Samuel for forgiveness...
and later Samuel has this to say to Saul: The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.
Note here, Saul continued as the anointed king of Israel, but that no son of his ever ruled again...
So, can we now find a parallel in the history of Christendom? I believe we can in Henry VIII of England.
Henry wanted to divorce his first wife, and applied to the pope to have his marriage annulled. the pope refused and instructed Henry that it was not lawful for him to divorce his wife.
In response, Henry severed ties with Rome, declared himself head of the Church in England and divorced his wife.
And just as Saul, no son of Henry ever ruled over England. One was crowned but died before reaching the age of majority, his daughters (Mary and Elizabeth) indeed ruled as Queens, but with the passing of Elizabeth that was the end of the House of Tudor..
The crown passed to a neighbour of theirs... James VI of Scotland of the House of Stuart, who was crowned James I of England
(now James is an interesting guy. He had a Catholic mother (Mary, queen of scots), was raised in presbertyrian Scotland and became the head of the Church of England.. perhaps we'll have a closer look at him later)
To sum up,
I believe that we see here that the first, or primary responsibility of any Christian leader is to be (completely) obedient to the will of God.
and that God will not accept justifications and excuse for failing to do so, nor allow one to shift the blame to those that they had authority over.
Peace!
