The Pro-Kingship and Anti-Kingship Debate
The pro-kingship and anti-kingship debate as discussed in 1 Samuel is about the request to Samuel from his people for a king. They feel a king is needed because Samuel's sons don't follow his example and are bad leaders. Samuel follows through with their request by asking God for a king. Samuel was hesitant to do so, but asked God anyway and He followed through with their request.
In my opinion, the pro-kingship argument brings up some good points. A king can be a good thing to have especially in times of turmoil. This is because a king can provide two things for people. First, a king can provide a sense of order in times such as these. Second, a king can provide security for people, which is one of themain reasons why people want a king. They want a king who will be able to protect them from outside invaders. Also, a king could be elected as a third party so he has no favorites and isn't corrupt.
Oh the other hand, the anti-kingship argument brings up some good points. A king is easily open to corruption on several levels. First, the king is open to corruption by those who have money and are willing to give him money so that he will cater to their needs over the needs of others who maybe don't contribute to the king. Second, the king is open to corruption just from having the power of a king. Power can easily corrupt people and make them do things differently. Another aspect of the anti-kingship argument is that, in the case of the Bible, there should be no king because God had not planned for one.
Overall, I feel that in this case, the anti-kingship argument is the best, because it is what follows God's word. God would have have provided for a king to have been named without having to had asked Him for a king. This is another good example of why we should follow God's Word, because if we follow His words, everything will usually turn out fine in the end. God may test us, such as he did to Samuel's people, but if...