THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, a cornerstone of modern, religiously plural democracies, leaves unclear the relationship between prophet and king. The two books of Kings are crystal clear on the issue—the prophet has authority over the king.
To be sure, some present-day commentators are sure that modern Western democracies are clear on the relationship between prophet and king. The king (or president or prime minister or whatever the political ruler is called) rules. No ambiguity there, they say. Others demur.
Some of the confusion has to do with what is understood by the three terms in the phrase, “the prophet has authority over the king.” What is a prophet? What is a king? What is authority? Some of the confusion can be traced to the different ways the biblical writer of 1 and 2 Kings understood these three terms and the way those of us in modern democratic pluralisms understand them.
The writer of Kings thought of a “prophet” as a charismatic person given a special message from God to present to a backsliding king of Israel. He considered a “king” a person anointed by God to politically rule over Israel. “Authority” was a kind of moral commitment and example on the part of either the prophet or king. The prophet, for example, demonstrated his “authority” by delivering his unpopular message from God to the king regardless of the danger or personal cost. The king, by contrast, demonstrated his authority by personal model—the people’s character was represented by the king’s character. When the king sinned, the people sinned; when the king was faithful and just, the people were considered faithful and just.
Part of the challenge facing Gus Konkel as he wrote this excellent commentary on these two biblical books is that none of these three terms is understood this way in modern (particularly Western), religiously plural democracies. We are faced with the classic commentator’s challenge—how to bridge the difference in meaning between biblical times and contemporary times.
Who is a “prophet” today? Whereas biblical prophets were specially called individuals, the prophetic function today rests largely with the voice of the church. We sometimes still play with the idea of identifying individual prophets such as Martin Luther King and Billy Graham and Desmond Tutu—but our egalitarian leanings urge us toward the prophetic role of the entire church rather than special individuals.
Who is a “king” today? Whereas biblical kings ruled by law and God’s anointing, political leaders in representative governments “rule” not by God’s anointing but by making decisions based largely on the majority will of the people who elected them. Today’s “kings” do occasionally exert “leadership” at odds with the so-called will of the people, but they tend not to stay in office long if they do.
What is “authority” today? The authority of political leaders does not rest in their personal willingness to and faithfulness in living a sanctified Christian life. I can feel all of you recoiling at the thought of having your character represented by Bill Clinton or George Bush. Yet we would be naïve to claim that the personal life and commitment of elected leaders has no “authority” in our lives. They have some constitutional authority and a great deal of what we might call “moral suasion,” a platform from which their personal behavior and commitments influence countless young people looking for models.
And what of the authority of prophets? Of the rare individuals on whom we confer the title, too often they find themselves having to seek political power to change things, becoming politicians themselves in the process. More pertinent is the question of what is the authority of the church, today’s prophetic voice. Unfortunately, we find a double standard operating. Officially we deny they have a role in a system dedicated to the separation of church and state. Unofficially, we play a role of moral suasion every bit as important as that exercised by our “kings.”
People believe in and desire this unofficial relationship, much more than they do the official separation laws. Perhaps this implicit double standard is the way forward to make sure that the prophet always has a say in the work of the king. Perhaps making it more explicit would run us into dangers we have faced before of having the church overly involved in the politics of the world. But the message of 1-2 Kings is that no matter how we do it, the “prophet” must have a voice. God rules and we must tell the world of that fact.
Terry C. Muck