There is only one argument against monarchy that is of any real concern to me. As expressed in this blog post, the monarchy principle supposedly derives from pagan unitarianism and is inconsistent with Christian trinitarianism.
According to the author, "It would seem then that after the revelation of the Holy Trinity... no representation of divine sovereignty in the world-immanent realm is possible. The attempts to produce and, then, theologically justify such representation was, at its core, flawed and predicated on a misunderstanding (or improper emphasis) of God's 'oneness.'"
Really? No representation of divine sovereignty in the world-immanent realm is possible?
Did not Jesus Christ represent divine sovereignty in the world-immanent realm? And, do not bishops and kings represent Christ on earth?
This seems like a bad argument. I'd much appreciate it if anyone can explain how I'm mistaken.
It is most probable that some conceptions of monarchy derive from pagan sources. It may also be true that some conceptions are informed by some Christological error (e.g., the King's two bodies?).
However, at present, I understand that the Father has committed all authority to the Son, and that the Son rules through his representatives in the world-immanent realm.
Also, at present, I am unaware of any principle that precludes Christ's rule through the agencies of popes and/ or emperors.