Very thoughtful and interesting. To step outside the Christian tradition for a moment, for Rome, of course, the institution of king does become bad per se (and Caesar is, famously, thrice offered the crown); even when what we categorise as a monarchy comes about under Octavian, it is hedged about with non-royal language (“imperator”, “princeps”). But the shift to the East perhaps eases the internal conflict, and once you are happily using “basileus” then the Republic seems a very long way away, chronologically, geographically and ideologically.
The talk of “values” often seems to imply someone valuing - it’s a subjective measure, and couldn’t be further from the true, the good, and the beautiful, which call out to you and compel you to follow them.
Excellent post! Especially like the distinction you make between “values” and Christ’s offering of Himself as “the singular Way…of virtue which leads to the fullness of life and truth.”
Yes! Subset of kings?
Very thoughtful and interesting. To step outside the Christian tradition for a moment, for Rome, of course, the institution of king does become bad per se (and Caesar is, famously, thrice offered the crown); even when what we categorise as a monarchy comes about under Octavian, it is hedged about with non-royal language (“imperator”, “princeps”). But the shift to the East perhaps eases the internal conflict, and once you are happily using “basileus” then the Republic seems a very long way away, chronologically, geographically and ideologically.
The talk of “values” often seems to imply someone valuing - it’s a subjective measure, and couldn’t be further from the true, the good, and the beautiful, which call out to you and compel you to follow them.
Excellent post! Especially like the distinction you make between “values” and Christ’s offering of Himself as “the singular Way…of virtue which leads to the fullness of life and truth.”
are not warriors also a masculine type in scripture as well?