51 pages • 1 hour read
Gene EdwardsA Tale of Three Kings: A Study of Brokenness
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1980A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Leadership and the Call of God
The central issue in A Tale of Three Kings has to do with leadership roles in the community of God’s people (whether in ancient Israel or in modern churches). The novel addresses a particular concern that some church communities face: how to deal with leaders whose character or calling might not fit them for the work of ministry. Part 1 (which looks at the period of Israelite history under Saul’s kingship) studies the question of discerning the best course of action when the leader in authority is a person of poor character, whose behavior is affecting the congregation in detrimental ways. Part 2 (which looks at the period under King David) concerns itself with whether it is ever appropriate to rise up against an established leader in favor of what appears to be a more promising ministry candidate.
The book regards a person’s anointing—that is, their calling and divine appointment for a ministry role—as separate from their inner moral character, which may or may not be well-adapted to promoting spiritual growth in that role. The ideal is for a leader both to be anointed and to have a good character, but in some cases it may be that a person who has been called to ministry is nonetheless motivated by selfish aims and prone to sacrifice the spiritual growth of their flock to their own ambitions; and yet (in the book’s perspective) this does not invalidate their calling. The book suggests that God uses leaders of poor character to accomplish the divine purpose nonetheless:
He gives unworthy people his power? […] Why does God do such a thing? The answer is both simple and shocking. He sometimes gives unworthy vessels a greater portion of power so that others will eventually see the true state of internal nakedness within that individual (41).
This emphasizes an idea that is pervasive throughout the book: that bad leads to good, or that the bad is useful for accomplishing the good. Bad leaders are helpful to congregations, and brokenness and suffering are helpful to forming good leaders.
The book’s advice for those in a spiritual community that is under an authoritarian leader of that sort is to suffer silently and nobly, allowing the leader’s poor treatment of them to shape them in the virtues that flow from brokenness: humility, selflessness, patience, perseverance, and trust in God. For leaders themselves, even though one’s calling from God is potentially independent of one’s character, the book’s emphasis would encourage such a person to devote themselves to developing the virtues of a David by practicing humility and submission to God and not to worry about whether one’s authority is being threatened. As David himself put it: “I seek His will, not His power. I repeat, I desire His will more than I desire a position of leadership” (75). In the book’s view, God is the ultimate and only true leader; paradoxically here, other leaders are servants and followers.
Brokenness as a Godly Virtue
In A Tale of Three Kings, the narrator emphasizes the quality of “brokenness” as a positive attribute, which stands in contrast to the word’s conventional usage in most contexts. In the 20th century American evangelical circles that constitute the background context of A Tale of Three Kings, however, “brokenness” could be used in two ways: either in a negative sense, as an indication of the state of the world in its subjection to sin, or in a positive sense, relating to the humbled condition of a soul that submits to God. The usage in A Tale of Three Kings conforms to the second of these, focused on the internal state of a person’s spiritual condition: “God has a university. It’s a small school. Few enroll; even fewer graduate. Very, very few indeed. God has this school because he does not have broken men and women” (15).
The theological idea behind this theme of brokenness is as follows: First, humanity in its sinful state is hardened against God; second, this state leads to a self-centered attitude toward life; third, that habitual attitude can be broken only by having one’s self-centered perspective dismantled, often by the shock of going through suffering; and fourth, once broken in this way, the person’s soul is able to learn how to submit to God rather than to exalt their own desires and ends. The book describes David’s growth in this manner, made effective by the suffering caused by Saul’s murderous pursuit: “King Saul sought to destroy David, but his only success was that he became the instrument of God to put to death the Saul who roamed about in the caverns of David’s own soul” (24). The development of this kind of brokenness thus opens the door to further virtues, which can grow only from suffering, abasement, and a recognition that God (rather than oneself) is truly sovereign. These virtues are humility, patience, perseverance, and faith: “What does this world need,” the narrator asks, “gifted men and women, outwardly empowered? Or individuals who are broken, inwardly transformed?” (42).
As such, A Tale of Three Kings presents brokenness as the highest character-virtue for pastoral leaders, a condition that prevents the abuses of authoritarianism and puts one in a rightly ordered relationship with God. Following with the book’s paradoxical reasoning, brokenness makes for strength, for completeness, in the church community. This is in line with Christian theological thinking, which focuses on the supremacy of the downtrodden and the meek as opposed to the privileged.
The Difficulty of Knowing the Will of God
The narrator in A Tale of Three Kings repeatedly reminds the reader that some aspects of God’s will simply cannot be known. This is stated clearly in one of the dialogues between the reader-character and the narrator: “‘My king is mad. At least, I so perceive him. What can I do?’ First, recognize this immutable fact: You cannot tell (none of us can) who is the Lord’s anointed and who is not” (21). Further, if one might be tempted to deduce God’s will in a situation, the narrator insists that the costs of trying to understand it are significant and dangerous to the health of one’s spiritual community. Most commonly, this theme arises in connection with the question of whether a particular leader is a “Saul” or a “David.” The narrator, especially when interacting with the reader-character, warns against any temptation to speculate as to a leader’s identity. It is either impossible or nearly impossible to know for certain whether one’s leader is a Saul or a David. A long period of observation may provide clues to an answer, but the intervening time will be put to greatest use not in making that identification but in allowing one’s own soul to be trained in the virtues of brokenness and submission.
Even if one is able to make a tentative identification, numerous difficulties remain. For example, the nature of God’s calling is something that only God will know for sure, and that even the person who believes themselves to be called for service can only take on faith and not as a certainty. Further, even if one identifies a leader as a “Saul,” it still remains the case that God had called and anointed Saul for service, and so the idea that one’s leader is a Saul is not sufficient cause to seek their removal: “Saul was given authority that is God’s alone. He was God’s anointed, and God treated him that way” (40). According to the book, one’s role should not be to determine or take on God’s will but to do the opposite: to be broken and subservient to God’s and the world’s processes.
Part 2 of the book adds another layer of uncertainty to the question by suggesting that the nature of God’s calling can change with time. Although David was anointed to be king over Israel, he is uncertain whether it is still God’s will for him to remain as king when facing Absalom’s rebellion. All of these uncertainties add up to an extremely complicated picture, meaning that anyone seeking to know the will of God regarding a particular leader’s situation will probably not be able to resolve the question with certainty; or even if one can, they will likely find it unadvisable to take any concrete action on the matter. Again, the book implies that knowing God’s will is a form of not knowing; it can lead one astray. A leader should practice only submission to God’s will. The paradoxes of leadership are emphasized, because, in Christian theology, leaders are non-leaders; they are followers.
