Subscribe
Latest Activity
-
About
Dr. Del Tackett is the author, architect and teacher for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project, a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
-
By Month
-
- ►March
- ►February
- ►January
- ►2009
- ►2008
- ►2007
-
Links
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
The “Theocracy” Argument
Posted on June 5, 2008
Filed Under Worldview |
I’m sure most of you have all three of these: a local radio station, a popular call-in program, and one guy who seems to call in every day. I don’t get to tune in very often, but when I do, Rick invariably shows up.
Rick doesn’t like Christianity and no matter what the topic of the day is, he will always find a way to squeeze in a criticism of believers and their faith. Today (as I write this) was no different. The topic was the President’s graduation address at the Air Force Academy and his call for patience and perseverance in bringing political freedom to the people of Iraq, pointing to the lengthy process that had to unfold with Japan and Germany. Rick took strong umbrage against the president, saying freedom would never work there just as it would never work here if Christians had their way. That led into his warning about the ominous rise of the push for “theocracy” by Christians and organizations like Focus on the Family, Campus Crusade and the Navigators.
Rick is obsessed with the notion that Christians are conspiring to bring about a “theocracy” in America. Anytime a Christian speaks out in the public square, Rick calls in to assure us all that this is another nail in the Republic’s coffin.
I, of course, was desperately trying to get a word in edgewise, though my radio doesn’t seem to provide that kind of two-way communication. I actually tried to call in, but couldn’t get through.
So, unfortunately for you, my outlet is this blog. But before I tell you what I wanted to tell Rick, and the host, who let Rick’s accusations go unchallenged, I will pose the question to you.
Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward a “theocracy”?
What do you think?
Comments
114 Responses to “The “Theocracy” Argument”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Comments on Del Tackett's blog may not refer specifically to any current electoral candidate, or any measure on a current ballot – at any level of local, state, or federal government. Focus on the Family is a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity, and therefore cannot take a position on specific votes. Nor can we display any such statements on our Web sites. Likewise, we cannot discuss here the personal viewpoints of people like Dr. Dobson or Jim Daly on political candidates or ballot measures. Any posts to this forum which violate these rules will be removed. There is an alternative venue for this type of discussion. Some activities of this nature are undertaken by Focus on the Family Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, and its media outlet, Citizenlink.
I’m nearly done with the Truth Project course and I’ve begun to wonder as much myself! In some ways a theocracy seems to be an easy way to deal with “the infidels” if you will…the state would then act as God’s hand of vengeance against those who oppose his laws.
At the same time, that’s quite a bit too ‘Old Testament’ for the reality of a people living after the birth, death and resurrection of Christ. Soooo, my vote is ‘no.’
Not to fall back on an over used phrase, but What Would Jesus do? Our country was founded by Christians BUT these founders came here fleeing the oppression they were under in their home countries.
We do live in the land of the free & home of the brave. We, as followers of Christ, need to stand up for the values and instruction He provided and vote with those values in mind. Remember, it is God who is in control & His will will be accomplished regardless of how our government is run.
Even though God seeks us we need to open the door to allow him to enter. I was told at one time that Jesus is a gentleman and won’t come unless he is invited. We need to follow that behavior. We need to model Christ and when we have an opportunity we are instructed to share our faith with those who are seeking.
Look back and see what God thought when his people wanted their first king. We need to keep God on his throne, at least within our own minds. The last thing we need is a Theocracy. That would just be putting another king between us and God.
No. The Bible tells us that one day Jesus Christ will return to establish a “theocracy”. Until that time we are to be salt and light in the earth, to love one another, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, to make disciples of all nations, and look “…for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
The founding fathers of the United States were far more grounded in a Biblical Christian worldview than most Christians today. Yet they took great lengths not to establish a theocracy. This is because they were well aware that a few centuries earlier the Roman Catholic Church tried to establish a theocracy in Europe and ushered in what we know in history today as the “Dark Ages”. (This may be an over simplification, but I think it makes the point.)
Every community has their Ricks. The ACLU just loves these guys. It only takes one to threaten a law suit to make school officials stop student lead prayers at graduations or sporting events, take down nativity scenes in public places and in many other ways to prevent the “free exercise thereof”.
A true Biblical Christian worldview teaches us to love our Ricks, to be patient with them and to show compassion to them. But this does not mean that we are to roll over and play dead and let them take over. We must, with the love of Jesus Christ, stand our ground and continue to wait for Him.
Absolutely not. Christ calls us to change the world one soul - one heart - at a time. He doesn’t call us to force His world-view on non-believers by taking over the government.
Constantine shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t wish for it either.
We do not need to establish a theocracy. Jesus will do that at the end of time as described in Revelation.
While politics is an important context for influence I believe that it is influence with a small “i.” While the influence of the Kingdom of God is influence with a captial “I.” Christians should rightly be involved in both. Just as one writer on this thread said we need to be salt and light we need to be salt and light everywhere and that would include the political realm.
Historically though (and I think especially recently) we have aligned ourselves as an evangelical movement too close to politics and expected it to bring transformation where only the Kingdom can. Ultimately only the Kingdom of God has an answer to the problem of evil. Politics can only pretend, posture and promise that it does–but it really does not and therefore any deep, real change is simply not possible.
When Christ comes to reign, only then will we have a theocracy and we should not try to build a counterfeit in its place.
That is an excellent question and there seem to be many who think that the origin of our “one nation under God” made us a theocracy then, and any acknowledgment of God by a leader brings us back to that state.
In truth the United States have never been a theocracy and cannot be by definition as a theocratic nation is ruled directly by God through an intermediary. We are governed by our three branches - executive, congressional and judicial many of whom are elected by the vote of the people. Our founding fathers desired that all in leadership should be mindful of God, know His word and consult with Him in prayer. This did not make a theocracy then nor would it now. If this changes it will not be changed by Christians, and it will not become a theocracy, but something far different.
The nation of Israel during Moses, Joshua and the judges was the only true theocracy in the history of the world and they didn’t allow that status to remain for a great amount of time. They became dissatisfied and sought a monarchy which caused much grief. We have never been anywhere close to a theocracy in the U.S., and will not be while this form of government remains.
“Render unto Caesar…”
I am a Christian. I am outspoken about living my life according to the Gospel. But when Christian groups are advocating for laws and amendments which essentially legally force everyone to fall in line behind a biblical worldview, then yes…. it is a form of theocratic rule.
Leslie…
Let’s not ever be flip about that. If “Ceasar” was elected this November and he decided to use federal funding (my taxes and yours) to fund abortions, even late term ones, would you “render?”
This is where a solid, well thought out orthodox Christian worldview is essential. At what point would you “render” and at what point would you stand with Luther and say, “Here I stand I can do no other.”
A biblical Christian worldview does not support Christian Theocracy. I think instantly of Pilate’s examination of Jesus, wherein he first denies being a king (of this world) then admits that he is a king (but of another world). I also think of Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in the garden the night before where Jesus ordered Peter to “put away his sword.” Christianity does not call us to use governments or armies to establish God’s Kingdom.
Theocracy: A form of goverment in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme ruler, his laws being interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities. -Webster’s dictionary
How can any believer say, “We don’t want this!”?
Great question Del! This is another subject that so many Christians strongly disagree on but I think that many do not think deeply enough about it. Most seem to make it an Old vs. New Testament debate. My view is that the bible is one book and needs to be studied in that context.
Rick doesn’t understand that freedom comes from God. It was precisely because of our founding father’s biblical worldview that allowed opposing religions or non-religious people to not fear persecution. God’s kingdom is not established through force although He does mandate the use of force in punishing the evil doer. (Rom. 13)
According to Christ and exactly as Daniel prophesied, God’s kingdom was brought to us in the person of Christ, Who came to testify to the truth! Daniel also wrote that this kingdom would eventually fill the whole earth and would “destroy ” every other kingdom. How so?
There are only two kingdoms in this world - man’s or God’s. Does bible prophecy indicate that Christ is coming to set up His kingdom twice? It does say that He will come back and that believers will be caught up in the air with Him. There is no biblical support for the notion that Christ will come back a third time to set up a theocracy by force.
Every Christian is called to be a biblical theocrat in some dimension. It is not the pastor’s or elder’s role to govern the state but it is his calling to speak the truth of God to that “sphere”.
I believe that biblical theocracy will come, sooner or later, through the advance of the gospel into all areas of life.
Let the whole world sing, “Our God reigns!”
Mike W.
Lee,
I have a few questions regarding your post. What kind of laws would you say are forcing everyone to fall in line behind a biblical worldview? Should there be a law against abortion? What about gay marriage? What about murder? theft? etc.
Without a foundation for morality and ethics apart from the government, there is no right and wrong.
Did the founding fathers set up a theocracy in this country when they advocated the teaching of scripture in schools? or when they acknowledged the God-given rights to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
All of these stem from a biblical worldview. Even our three branches of government come from scripture. A non-Christian people couldn’t have formed our country. Really, even the freedom we have in this country to deny and speak out against Christianity comes from the Nature of God and His choice to give us a free will.
I believe that many Christian groups spend time and money attacking the symptoms of our country’s problems i.e. abortion, gay marriage, divorce, school violence, etc. when the cause of all of those problems (besides sin) is our lack of being in the Word.
May God continue to draw us to Himself that we may better understand His will for us.
Respectfully,
Dave
Mike W. says, “Theocracy: A form of goverment in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme ruler, his laws being interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities. -Webster’s dictionary” I’m not sure which edition this is…
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary 2008
Theocracy: Government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
Webster Dictionary - 1828
Theocracy: Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted till the time of Saul.
Christianity is a religion of tensions and for good reason, our very existence is in tension. One of those tensions is between liberty and control. There is no easy way to solve this tension. In fact it may not be solvable at all until the tension within man between the imparted glory of God and man’s sinful nature are resolved. As Pascal says, “Man is both miserable and great”. Because mankind is corrupt and out of balance, we will always tend to mess even good things up. Luther likened the church to a drunken peasant trying to ride a horse, pulling himself up to sit only to fall off the other side.
With that said, let’s understand what the Founding Fathers had to deal with. The problem with a theocracy is the line, “[God's] laws being interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities”. This concentrates a lot of power in a very small group of people, and history gives us plenty of examples of the corruptive force of power. The Founders understood this well; they had experienced and were experiencing the despotism that can come from a monarchy where all soveriegnty is placed in one person. The “Divine right of kings” is not Biblical.
I beleive that the Founders were standing on the shoulders of the Puritans. The Puritans did establish a theocratic form of government in the earlier stages of the Massachusetts Bay Colony but it was begun with a community of mature believers who voluntarily covenanted to live together in that way. The Puritans believed that man was basically evil and consequently that no single person should be given too much power. The Puritans instituted a three-branch form of government, executive (power in one), representative (power in a few), and electorate (power in the people). These checks and balances were probably based on John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
It is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess.
Back to the Founders… I believe they formed the government with this very well-balanced understanding inherited from the Puritans who succeeded them by 2-3 generations. But I also think the Founders took a calculated risk (as liberty always does) that Americans would continue to be a virtuous people. Dr. Tackett does a masterful job of showing this in Lesson 10 (I think) of the TP.
I think that the American people, and Christians included, suffer from an infection of freedom. We have arrived at the definition of freedom as the right to do whatever I want. Here is a warning given to us by Plato in “Republic”
Socrates - Then may we say that democracy, like oligarchy, is destroyed by its insatiable craving for the object which it defines to be supremely good?
Adeimantus - And what according to you, is that object?
Socrates - Freedom
Socrates goes on to say - I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.
The Biblical idea of freedom is very different. One of the Hebrew words translated as “liberty” is d’ror. It is also translated as “pure”. In fact the biblical concept of freedom or liberty is more closely related to purity than to self-governance. Romans 6 says we are not completely free, rather we are slaves to either God or sin. I think the Puritan John Winthrop gives us one of the finest definitions of liberty:
“Nor would I have you to mistake in the point of your own liberty. There is a liberty of a corrupt nature which is effected both by men and beasts to do what they list, and this liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty ’sumus omnes deteriores’: ’tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty which is the proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is just and good: for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives and whatsoever crosses it is not authority, but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained in a way of subjection to authority; and the authority set over you will, in all administrations for your good, be quietly submitted unto by all but such as have a disposition to shake off the yoke and lose their true liberty, by their murmuring at the honor and power of authority.”
We as Christians need to first reclaim the biblical concept of liberty for ourselves, and then model and promote this concept to a lost nation around us. To let my neighbor lead his life away into ruin is not to love him.
John
Mr. Krempel,
You said: “But when Christian groups are advocating for laws and amendments which essentially legally force everyone to fall in line behind a biblical worldview, then yes…. it is a form of theocratic rule.”
So then, by your logic no group with a common thought or philosophy should have a voice in the sphere of American politics? I’m sure you didn’t really mean that…
A true example of a theocracy would be the country of Iran during the early 1980s. Iran, during this time was ruled by the Ayatollah Khomeini. His Islamic theological beliefs were imposed on everyone and brutally enforced. I’m not sure how one would describe the current Iranian government from a theological perspective. That would be another subject for another day…
All,
In our country a Christian’s vote and a non-Christian’s vote carry the same weight. Our fore-fathers earnestly tried to avoid a system of self-rule that would allow persecution based upon religion. At the same time, because we have a representative form of government, we as individuals or as a group are allowed work toward the election of people that share our worldview. We are also allowed (individually or collectively) to lobby our elected officials and try to influence how they vote on issues that are important to us; just as someone who holds diametrically apposed ideas is allowed to do the same. Regardless of the view of the participant; to not be involved in the political process actually hurts our great representative system of government.
Getting back to Del’s question: “Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward a “theocracy”? ”
I would have to answer this question with a resounding “NO!” and here’s why:
I feel that Christ gave us many specific commands. The first that I am led to share here is the “Great Commission” (Mark 13:10) NIV “10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.” and the another is (John 13:34) NIV “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ” How do you obey these commands while trying to establish a Christian theocracy? You simply can’t! During His ministry, Jesus Christ had no direct interest in the affairs of government. Everything Christ did on earth was in direct obedience to the will of the Father who sent Him. In the same way our obedience should align with the commands of Christ.
I believe we can be obedient to Christ while at the same time trying to influence the direction our country takes on important matters. However, the concept of preaching to all and loving all is not compatible with ruling all. No, a Christian theocracy is not part of the Christian church’s mission.
In His service,
Dan…
In the Truth Project you speak of the spheres of responsibility: God has delegated immediate authority here on earth to earthly rulers and kingdoms.
Our own founding fathers, in their foresight and wisdom, understood that a human system was necessary and problematic: in both cases because of the nature of humans.
We need a physical government as an identity, a physical representation of the true and ultimate authority. The physical government can only govern, reward, and punish in the physical realm. God has reserved for Himself the ability to govern, reward, and punish spiritually and eternally.
As we are obedient to our earthly authorities in respect for their delegated authority from God, we ought also to be obedient to God.
Mr. Hagan,
You are correct, that is not what I mean. Every person in this country has a right to vote, christian or non-christian. Christians can vote for whatever they want, whenever they want. It should remain that way, of course.
Take for instance same-sex marriage, which is a popular topic among the religious right right now. In a secular, multicultural society (which is where we live), there is no indisputable [nonreligious] reason for not allowing gays to marry. There simply isn’t. There is a Christian-based reason for a form of discrimination.
This may not be an advocation of explicit theocracy by those who want to pass such a law, but it is without a doubt implicit. How could it be seen as otherwise?
Dave,
Those are very good thoughts. They are principles that I have struggled to understand in my journal from being active in the causes of conservative religio-politics to what I am today.
The question of the “moral force” behind all laws is an important one; and you are right. The difference is that most reasonable societies and philosophies can all agree on many basic principles. For example, “Do Not Murder,” while a biblical principle is a universal.
Same Sex Marriage is not such a universal, as one can see from the amount of division it causes. I don’t know if any of you have read this book, but Dr. Greg Boyd speaks to this issue far more eloquently than I…the book is… “The Myth of a Christian Nation” and it is magnificent. You don’t have to worry about his coming from a secular point of view, as he is a pastor in Minnesota.
Wow, what a great question! I completely agree with Dan’s insights. Jesus stated that we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, thus complying with the authority of His time. I believe that we can take this passage (as well as others) and apply it to our times by understanding that our system of government is a system that allows for all voices to be heard. The problem that we are facing today is that certain Christian groups have made their voices heard but have not followed the Biblical mandate to “love thy neighbor.” All I can do as a Christian is to be involved as a voice in government (by voting, etc,) , which is my privilege and responsibility as a citizen of the United States, but I am also responsible for loving my neighbor at the same time. There will always be those who appose the wrong with the sword, but it is up to us who understand Christ’s heart to be the salt and light in true gentleness and humility. We should not shrink back just because someone else has given a bad example to the world. If anything this should cause us to be MORE involved in order to provide good examples of what it means to be a true Christian in this world where people have been so hurt by the “Christian” sword. Voting and lobbying, etc is not theocracy, but it is allowing us to be salt and light in our responsibilities and privileges of government.
I believe we work toward a theocracy in the fact that we work to bring God’s kingdom to earth: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:10)
Of course, looking at the church in America today, one might wonder if we are indeed seeking to bring God’s kingdom to earth. The lack of a Biblical world view prevents many from working at all.
We do not, however, want the American system of government to be made into a theocracy. That is not the intent, at least from my point of view. We do, however, seek to return our country to the moral foundation upon which it was based.
I would never want anyone to be forced to become a Christian, no more than I would want anyone to be forced to become a member of any other religion. God made us free moral agents.
If we are to have a moral government, we need some basis from which to decide what is moral and what is not. There has not been a better standard than the one God has provided in His Word, the Bible. Following the Bible when enacting laws would not make us a theocracy. It would sure make things interesting, though!
Mike Corum
Christians aren’t (or shouldn’t be) out to make the US a theocratic nation. Scripture sets up a different model for government, one in which God has given earthly lordship to earthly rulers. We would certainly love to have moral leaders who value the same things we value, but Scripture doesn’t teach a real theocracy until HIS KINGDOM COMES.
Dan,
You said: “I would have to answer this question with a resounding “NO!” and here’s why:
I feel that Christ gave us many specific commands. The first that I am led to share here is the “Great Commission” (Mark 13:10) NIV “10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.” and the another is (John 13:34) NIV “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. “”
How then, can you answer with no? Shouldn’t the answer be “YES!”? If a theocracy helps spread the Gospels, then that is what is needed. It’s not as though establishing a theocracy negates love.
This is the same principle as “hate the sin, love the sinner”. We do not establish a theocracy because we hate unbelievers or followers of false doctrines, but just the opposite! We should establish a theocracy BECAUSE WE LOVE them!
We talk so much about the little issues here in America: gay marriage and the like. We say about such an issue that “we would not let a child continue walking into the street, even if the child said it did not want to be saved”.
Why do we not apply such thinking to the world at large? How many people die every day? And how many of those are atheists, buddhists, homosexuals, abortionists, etc.?
How can we sit here and say, “No, let’s not US -the people who are supposed to be following God’s word- do the work. Let’s relax, get comfortable and lazy. Jesus can do the work for us.”
Lee,
Are you saying that if “most reasonable societies and philosophies” come to accept murder in the next 50 or 100 years, that the topic will become debatable and possibly excusable?
I would submit (in my limited study) that “most reasonable societies and philosophies” 100 years ago considered homosexuality unacceptable. What has changed this?
The idea that truth is absolute is not accepted in the mainstream. Do this keep it from being true?
On what do we build our view of what is acceptable? Statistics and what everyone else is doing?
Some things are good because the Bible says they’re good, some things are vile and evil because the Bible says they’re vile and evil. This is not an issue with homosexuality, it’s an issue of truth and authority. It’s not about what “most reasonable societies and philosophies can all agree on.” It’s about what God reveals to us in His Word which, as Dr. Tackett continually points out, is a reflection of God Himself and His nature.
Back to the theocracy idea…Christians are supposed to make God’s Word the foundation of their thinking and of their worldview. Christians’ lives should reflect the Word. If Christians with a biblical worldview form a government, it will reflect them and they reflect the Word. Since most of our founding fathers were Christians, we started with a government built on the principles of the Bible, but it was not a theocracy.
Respectfully,
Dave
Dell, I share your pain.
The problem with Rick and his ilk is that they want to re-write history to fit their PC views. Of course, one problem with PC-ness is that it is a moving target.
The founding fathers had a particular world view based on the Bible and religion was integral to their lives. All you need to do is wander around DC looking at the buildings and monuments with all the Bible verses and exhortations to the Almighty to see that they did not create a government devoid of religion.
Our government was established with freedom of religion. The liberals are trying to re-interpret that to freedom from religion. Anything we try to do to reaffirm the truth is decried as a move toward theocracy.
They are living a lie. Why are they compelled to have the rest of the world agree to their lie? Are they perhaps so insecure in their lie that it cannot stand unless we all agree to it? Are we the child declaring that the king has no clothes??
We can have a government with freedom of religion and with a majority having a biblical world view and not be a theocracy. They don’t really understand the definition of theocracy. Or, more likely, they do and hope the listening audience doesn’t.
It is truly disheartening to see the will of the majority subverted by the minority as in California with the courts and marriage and in Colorado with the open restroom law SB200.
Pray, we must pray. The world is getting most crazy.
A LITTLE ADVICE TO YOU CHRISTIANS FROM A NON CHURCH-GOER:
Crying about “Theocracy” is the first refuge of Christian haters. Lacking historical facts, the anti-church Demogogues instead resort to rusty, straight-from-the-factory conspiracies to explain how you Christians are really out to re-impose the Dark Ages through your political activism.
I live in Hollywood and see this anti-Christian (bigotry in action all the time. I may be a fallen-away, doubting Catholic myself and haven’t been to a church in over 10 years, but I don’t harbor animosity toward devout Christians and see this secular bigotry for what it is.
Of course, every silly gaffe and careless remark from Big Whig Christians like Robertson, Falwell, etc make these conspiracy-mongers easier to believe.
Simply put, American history repeatedly shows that truly theocratic groups don’t succeed at imposing their views on the nonbelievers- the extreme theocrats always find it easier to check out of mainstream culture,pack their bags and move themselves to some secluded and far off place to get away from the rest of us sinners.
Ever since Plymouth Rock, this scenario has played itself out over and over:
-The Millerites of the 1800’s took refuge in caves to wait out God’s judgement. They eventually realized their error and rejoined civilization, this time as Jehova’s Witnesses.
-Likewise Mormon’s, who originally came from upstate New York, condemned society and all other Christian denominations and then fled to the desert wilderness of Utah. They’ve been rejoining the American mainstream ever since.
The American Church experience is not the Inquisition, folks. Not even close- and honestly, the Catholic Inquisition itself is NOWHERE NEAR the dark fairy tale retold by ignorant secularists. (Look it up for yourselves).
I win arguments here in Hollywood by pointing out that there is more to fear from Organized Christian haters (communists) with their (recent) body count in the tens of millions.
Del, We just completed a tour in Lawton, Oklahoma as leaders through the Christian Educators Association International leader workshop in Pasadena in January. It stirred our church!! Metamorphosis occured in many participants and some quit coming as it was too tough.
On the theocracy debate just as Jesus did not come to set one in place, his servants should not either. As we live our lives in obedience to the Holy Spirit and sin is cleaned up in our personal, family, and workplace lives communities are changed. Those interested in domination of others whether liberal or conservative desire through Christ to live out our Creator’s principles in all walks of life. If that is a theocracy (it is not) then so be it. Rick is viewing new life in Christ through “captive” lenses and we will pray the Counselor will lift the veil so truth may penetrate. Thank you so much for serving the Lord through the preparation of the Truth Project. We are planning our next tour with another area church in August. God bless.
I will try to spell to the best of my ability.
I strongley Beleve we need to pray for people as this one. We need to act more like Christ and less our self. When someone is wrong, pray first. Then with Gods guidence and the Holy spiret,speek or hole our tung. This person is still Loved by God, we need to love him back just as Jesus Loved us He placed His hand out to be naled for our sin. From befor till the time of His return He died for all our sin’s. The evel one rejoyces when we have our moment of self and not Jesus. So what will it be Gods way or our way.
I am for God, not my ways.
Robert Blannin
The theocracy to which we are called in the present age is the rule of Christ in our hearts and in His bride the church. The ultimate, certain and perfect theocracy will come once and for all when the resurrected Christ reigns on a resurrected Earth among His resurrected people.
Jeff
Don’t we have a de facto theocracy regardless of the governing system and governing authority (Romans 13)?
Do we not want to work for if pray for “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10)?
Unfortunately, unless the invisible and true church can agree on what are the essentials, what can be applied in a constitutional republic from Old and New Testament principles, and act on it through our means of voting, persuasion, and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, we will continue to be ineffective.
Unfortunately there is very little unity in the true church or maybe that is how it is meant to be?
We’re like the wind . . . (John 3:8)
I think not. The values upon which our nation was founded are absolute. They do not contain one among many truth options, but the only Truth. But, if we have learned anything at all in this Age of Grace, they are voluntary. There is no such thing as mandatory Christianity, which is what a theocracy under the New Covenant would amount to.
Should we contend in the public arena to defend and promote our values? Absolutely. Anything else would be negligence. Will we face opposition, persecution, imprisonment, or worse? Absolutely. Is God still in control? Absolutely.
Opposition to values that are absolute is, as C. S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man, “…a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves.” And such is the case (I fear) in the United States of America.
But others will embrace the Truth, and in that we can take consolation.
We are to share Christ with everyone or anyone. When Jesus walked this earth He never tried to create a theocracy government. He constanly assured us in His word that it was coming in the latter days.
Rev. Jim Gholson, Blackstone, Virginia
The first 4 commandments are between Man and God, and absolutely not to be enforced by a human government.
The theocracy of ancient Israel was the one and only true theocracy, where God ruled personally, had His Physical presence in the capital of the State, and proved His authority by miracles and judgements.
Solomon sat on “the throne of the Lord” and his line of kings, who literally ruled under God, went down to Christ, the Son of David. Christ, who is the true king of Israel and the only rightful ruler of any theocracy, said, “My Kingdom is not of this world, or else my servants would fight”.
When the New heavens and the New earth are established, the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of Christ, and He will rule a theocracy here on Earth forever.
The last six commandments** ARE the domain of human government, since governments do not “bear the sword in vain; for [they are] God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil”
These last six reflect the relationship of man to his fellow man.
Our laws ought to reflect and, to a degree, enforce the principles of the last six commandments, and ought to *protect* the rights of citizens to *choose* whether to keep the first four.
I believe this is in keeping with our principles as as nation: We honor religious freedom AND we have rich biblical tradition in our laws and founding documents.
**with the possible exception of the tenth, since coveting is in your mind
In John 18:36 Jesus said to Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” We are already members of a spiritual “Theocracy” as servants of Christ. As one of the contributors above said, Christ’s kingdom is being established “One believer at a time” in every nation on earth. Our North American Christianity is too “ethno-centric” and we fail to see the incredible growth of the Church of Christ all over the world, especially in the “10-40 Window” among the millions in the Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Asian sub-continent.
Hey, Rick join us in the greatest endeavor in history.
I believe that Jesus upon his return will establish a theocracy, but until that time the present mission of the church is to make disciples and be salt and light in the present world.
As a body of believers the church does live under a theocracy with Jesus as Lord over all of our lives.
Christianity as the founding fathers of this country understood it was to be an individual commitment based upon the conscience of the person in response to Biblical truth. This implies that there would also be the freedom for an individual in this country not to believe the gospel. Thus the concept of freedom of religion.
Christianity is the only belief that allows the freedom of dissent because its understood that imposed subjection to Christian principles does not necessarily lead to saving faith. Thus imposing a type of theocracy upon the unbelieving world is not the purpose of the church.
The answer is no! Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world. People must be free to choose Christ instead of the government choosing Christ for them as in the case where the Muslims make everyone conform to Islam or die. We don’t need to follow their path.
Stan Walker
Freeland, Washington
The Quran seems to indicate that the Islamic plan for evangelism is to obtain a theocratic rule and force the infidels to convert. And we see this being carried out in numerous contries. This method is definitely unbiblical and counter to Christ’s call for individual decision making.
Should we express our Christian beliefs in the way we vote as citizens and as politicans - yes!
Should we pass laws that penalize someone for not being a Christian - no!
Whatever rights we as Christians demand for ourselves, we must be willing for other faiths to have as well.
Conversely we should demand the same treatment as other faiths are granted.
Let Jesus rule through His children until that day when He returns and sets up the only acceptable theocracy.
Jeff
I am oh, so familiar with people like that. How they love to rail against Christianity because it’s so horrible and oppressive. (And the President is practically Hitler to them as well.)
But try to get them to say a word about Islam, which brings real oppression, loss of freedoms, true intolerance and even violence - not a word about that. EVER.
Christians should not make any effort to establish a theocracy, and I don’t think that many are. Jesus’ commission was to go into all the world and make disciples. Yes, this can and will influence governments, but that is a by-product of changed lives, not a direct political movement. Besides, as Christians participate in government, how is it that they could somehow turn the government over to God and step completely out of the way? No person can claim to govern a theocracy.
No, we are citizens of a heavenly kingdom. As Jesus said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” We are to be Godly citizens of earth while serving our heavenly King. This changes the world, but doesn’t move towards an earthly theocracy.
God’s kingdom is already established. Jesus reigns from His heavenly throne. When He comes again, we who believe in Him will live with Him in the New Heaven and New Earth wherein dwells righteousness and peace forever. That’s theocracy. We’ll have to look up and wait.
My vote is no. A theocracy didn’t work very well for the Catholics in the age of Christendom, also called the Middle Ages, or more appropriately, the Dark Ages. A Theocracy won’t work any better than Marx’s Utopian Atheistic society did, because in the end, it is fallible and power hungry humans that end up at the top of those governments, and they usually do what is best for them, not the people (might makes right).
Our founding fathers had it right by creating a country where all men and women can worship freely without Government establishing a religion. Our fight now is to keep government from trying to squash ours. In addition, we need to keep on guard that our government doesn’t establish another religion (i.e. Environmentalism/Pantheism) as the national religion of the United States. Nothing in the constitution says the “religion” that the government is not supposed to establish has to have a supreme deity as part of that religion. We are dangerously close to our government establishing by legislation and court rulings the establishment of radical envronmentalism/Pantheism as our national “religion”, and they are forcing us by laws and court decrees to “bow down to it”.
First we must define the word “theocracy.” Without a proper definition, how does one determine a position? A problem I see is that some people, not familiar with the Bible, are confusing Old Testament with New Testament when comes to defining “theocracy.” The Law of the Old Testament was given to show us that we are ALL sinners before God. If we do not define our terms, some will assume that “theocracy” is based on the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the law; He never asked us to “put to death” the sinner.
Lee wrote: “there is no indisputable reason for not allowing gays to marry.” That is an oxymoron. Why would a same sex couple want to have a covenant with a God they don’t believe in? Of course, soon, the definition of “marriage” will change to allow for the hypocrisy.
Using God’s Word (the Bible), we can establish laws, both moral and ethical. In Isaiah 1:18 God tells us: “Come now, let us reason together.” What happened to reasoning? When our country was founded on God’s principles, was there more crime or less crime then today? What about poverty? What about families; are there more or less single parent homes?
God is in control, but we all still responsible for our actions. As citizens and believers, we need to vote people in office that stand for Biblical principles and will uphold the Word of God.
Our Biblical Christian world view compels us to work toward the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Israel of the Old Testament and in Jesus’ day was a Theocracy, but fell far short of it’s divinely commissioned role to promote the Kingdom of God in it’s time. The reason being, Israel did not have a full understanding of the Gospel and the message of justification by faith. Paul spent much time in his writings exposing the fatal flaw in their theology, an adherence to the “letter” of the law rather than the “Spirit” of the law. The power to establish the Kingdom of God on this earth can only come from the Spirit of God working through willing hearts who boldly testify of the working of that power through changed lives, a testimony no one can gainsay. Heaven help we Christians for following in that error!
As nice as it sounds, a Theocracy, run by humans with the inclination to seek their own will would only be another form of oppression. I do know when Christ returns, all things will be Christ centered.
A government based on moral principals as indicated in the Bible where people are free to choose gives liberty to follow the great commission.
Not a simple answer. I would not say yes or no to this. Our responsibility is to honor Christ and the Bible with every resource we have. That means our laws, legislation, and anything else we can affect should honor Christ. If we vote or have resources then we should honor Christ politically. God is not honored by us allowing gay marriage in our country our allowing the killing unborn babies. We have to remember that government is our responsibility because we have a vote, a phone to call our representatives, a dollar to help push a cause, and any other good resource. Government is us not some distant evil entity. We as Christians will be held accountable for what our government does or does not do to honor Christ if we neglected to use the resources God has placed in our hands.
That being said, the main focus is always to bring Truth to a dying world. Priority number one should be to evangelize the lost and to equip the saints. By doing so government and society will naturally become more God honoring.
However that does not negate us from standing against the evil and darkness that enters our society through the media, laws, and legislation.
Remember that we are salt and light of the world. If America is ever left to its own desires without God’s mercy on us carried out often times through Christians, then so much darkness would overtake. So much that evangelism, humanly speaking, would be much more difficult.
This is why we have to stand up for and spread Truth on multiple fronts.
In Christ,
Shawn
Interesting question. I think that in a sense, the answer to the question is yes/no. While our founders clearly were had a Christian/biblical world view, they did not set out to establish a theocracy. “We the people of the United States…” is not the sort of statement you use to establish a theocracy. At the same time, it is clear from their writings that they saw the world through a … moral filter if you will, that was biblically based and assumed those who followed would as well.
While they were religious, for many, a large part of their world view had been established in the religious persecution of state controlled religion. (Or you could as well say religion controlled state.) As you read their writings the famous “wall of separation between church and state” was not designed to provide freedom from religion. Our founders clearly indicated that if our nation was to succeed and thrive, it would do so on the basis of a Judeo-Christian foundation and morals. This wall of separation then was never intended to provide freedom from religion, but rather freedom to practice religion according to your beliefs. A thin line perhaps but non-the-less an important one.
We can then conclude that no, their intent was not to establish a theocracy but yes, their intent was to establish a government that operated according to Judeo-Christian principles.
Del,
I hear the word theocracy kicked around a lot mainly by heavy metal secularists who think we want to legalize wife-beating. Theocracy means God-rule. So, it’s not a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but what “theo”, that is, which “god”? And the god that rules the culture now is the god of SELF. Now, as far as the fear of a state religion is concerned, that’s quite legitimate. The Founding Fathers dreaded the notion of a national church like the Church of England. However, that’s not a theocracy, it’s an ecclesiocracy.
I have not yet taken time to read other comments but want to add my reaction to the question of whether we as Christians should be working toward a Theocracy. In my personal life it makes sense that I function under a theocracy, with the Lord as my governor (president, mayor, etc.) as well as my Father, savior, guide, etc. However, in terms of having a Theocracy for the government of a country that would seem to have passed with the Israelites rejection and the unfolding of God’s plan of salvation in Jesus. Today the Lord doesn’t dwell in a temple, nor do people in leadership seem to walk closely enough to be sure they would hear the word of the Lord in terms of governing decisions. We should be working toward having God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. We should be striving to follow and live and serve so that God is glorified in our lives. How that impacts government and our participation in the governmental process is a question that I’m glad others will be considering! I’m willing to listen and consider and pray and then act according to the wisdom that comes based on scripture. Looking forward to hearing more!
I believe that having a Biblical Christian worldview allows us to see people and what happens in the world through God’s eyes.
“Everything in the heavens and earth is yours, O Lord, and this is your kingdom. We adore you as being in control of everything. Riches and honor come from you alone, and you are the Ruler of all mankind; your hand controls power and might, and it is at your discretion that men are made great and given strength.” (1 Chronicles 29:11-12, TLB)
“Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” (Romans 13:1, NAS)
Based on these two passages of Scripture, I do not believe we should seek or push for a “theocracy.”
No! A theocracy is a dangerous slippery slope in this day and age when Muslim extremists are attempting to control both religion and government! I’ll take my separation of church and state any day!
I have to agree with the majority that I have read. NO! In fact, my recent studies of the OT and the social psychology of the ME have altered my thinking of the theocracy of Israelites. The Mosaic laws instructed them to treat “aliens” with respect. While the Law does require a unified acceptance of “One God” and “His” laws, it clearly defines that “one nation under God” as being open to allowing the alien to live as one of them. HOWEVER, it did not allow for the marrying of foreign wives as they would corrupt the nation. Moses saw that with the Midianite women, Solomon and almost all of subsequent kings in both Judah and Israel experience the pollution of foreign gods.
BUT WHAT DID JESUS MEAN WHEN HE DIRECTED BOTH THE TWELVE AND THEN THE 72 TO SHAKE THE DUST OFF THEIR FEET AS A CONDEMATION AGAINST THOSE THAT DID NOT WELCOME THEM WITH A BLESSING?
A question, as a psychologist I find that I am getting less and less tolerant of the religious bigots on both sides of this question. However, the hypocrisy of the far Left such as Rick and their insistence that agnosticism or atheism is not a religion makes me angry.
Granted a true definition in a religion has not been open to these two forms of belief. The question begs to answered: “What is a religion?” If we accept Webster’s:
“Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”
Then wouldn’t agnosticism or atheism be a belief or faith that the absence of scientific evidence equates to the absence of a God?
Rick is religious bigot plan and simple.
The head of MI6 said in the early days of the battle on Islamic terrorism: “You can’t fight a war against an ‘-ism.’ It’s a continuing struggle”
Dear Dr Tackett,
I have not as yet read the other comments on this issue; however I am an alumnus of the Truth Project, and remember the lessons on Government well.
That said, I do not believe Christians should aim for, nor seek a theocracy in government. First of all, too many Christians struggle with the reality that God has already placed their leadership in power! I know I do. They also struggle against many of the pastorates they find themselves under as well. So the notion that they would want a theocracy might seem logical on the surface, and even realistic for some individuals, yet not much more than a pipe dream to me.
Secondly, I think Christians need to work with their leaders & government, just as they need to work with the world. In other words, the people who cross our paths - with whom we go to school, work, worship, and generally socialize - are all “known” to our Lord. He uses our interactions with them to help us see flaws in our own characters - OUCH! Ideally, we are there to model Him to them. So, if our prayer life is active, our Bible reading is abundant, and we are in touch with how we act & think, then we should be praying for improvement in our attitudes & help for those we know, or meet. We should be proactive for Christ, showing His love to our neighbors & associates.
Same applies for gov’t. Rather than react to bad policies we should vote & use every other means at our disposal to affect positive change. With unsavory office holders we need to ask God for His perspective, and try to see them as people in spiritual need whom we have been given the privilege to pray for.
If these were the focal points of Christians under any gov’t, I imagine that would be the closest to a theocracy we could ask the Lord for, since He is no respecter of persons, and wants ALL to come to know Him.
Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward, a “theocracy?” The word theocracy denotes the rule of God. I remember seeing another definition, however, which was better and stated that it is a form of government where the rulers claim to be ruling on behalf of a set of religious ideas, or as direct agents of a deity.
This last definition helps us to better understand the potential abuses of seeking a theocratic form of government. Those claiming to be acting as God’s agents could be, themselves deceived, while they deceive and rule as an oligarchy. Two thousand years ago, Christ criticized the elitist attitudes of the religious leaders calling them hypocrites and blind guides (Matt 23). The Pharisees claimed that they were shepherds of the flock, but only took care of themselves (Ez 34). So, it is understandable that some may be concerned. Is there any modern example of a theocratic government? How about Iran? Based on this modern example, we can further understand the apprehension of those who fear that the U.S. could become a theocracy.
In reading the documents and letters of our Founders, however, we find that they were generally influenced by a biblical Christian worldview when they developed our republican form of government rather than a theocracy. In addition, a historical study of America’s Christian ethics reveals that the country has been generous, even to its enemies, and generally tolerant to other cultures and religions. So, to claim that a biblical worldview in our government is damaging in some way is to misrepresent the truth.
We are in little danger of becoming a theocracy, but that does not mean that religious notions have no place in defining our politics. Right now, it seems that the reigning religious bent of our government is based on the religion of humanism. (Yes. Humanism is a religion!) And those who do not want Christians to have a voice are those of the religion of humanism, which makes their complaint disingenuous.
I, therefore, propose that the biblical Christian worldview does not call for us to seek for a theocracy as a method of public government. Dr. Tackett teaches us that God has given us the sphere of the State for that purpose.
Blessings.
Al
There has never been a “theocracy”, with the one possible exception of the pillar of fire and cloud in the wilderness, nor will there be until the new heaven and new earth talked of in Revelation.
A “theocracy” would be, literally, rule by God. God has not historically ruled directly, but has, rather, always appointed representatives to rule in his place, such as Moses, and the judges, even in Israel.
“Theocracy,” is, rather, only a strawman used by the left to marginalize Christians as just another radical religion, making fundamentalist Christians similar to fundamentalist Muslims who blow up buildings in New York City.
Christians then fall into the trap by arguing “we don’t want, and have never wanted, a Theocracy…” thus neutralizing their ability to advocate for God’s law as the moral foundation and authority upon which all laws are based, the heart of a Christian world view of the law, and that Christ is King over all nations, like it or not.
Hi Dell,
A God led theocracy would work well here. (or anywhere) But so would any other form of government that is God led. The key to success in government is for the government & the people to look to the Father for guidance in all things. Any other way has always & will always fail.
It’s that simple.
Brother Charles
“The Kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of His Christ; and He shall reign forever.”
These are not my words, they are God’s. God is good and He is King.
Be patient, God’s rule on earth is coming until then we are to live as strangers no matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship. One day Jesus will rule and until He does we are to be about building His Kingdom where ever we are and under whatever form of government we have.
The above does not prevent us from working to establish a Christian worldview.
Although, theocracy seems like a good idea, we must ask whether the church has done a good job of running itself. Theocracy is God’s kingdom and not of this world. It rules individuals who submit to his Lordship every day.
We are called to be salt and light. We are called as the church to be a pillar (testimony) and foundation for the “truth,” not to establish a kingdom here on the earth.
People are always looking for the easiest solution. Thinking we can establish a “sharia” type law on society is naive. Politics and the influence we think we can have on society is over rated. We influence people one at a time through the gospel of Christ.
Yes, in the sense that we are to be ruled by the LORD on an individual, or personal basis.
No, on the basis that a nation is to be ruled by God.
Christianity is a personal (internal)relationship with Christ–not an external one.
The Divine Right
Christians are not called to be cheerleaders for any particular political party. Secular conservatism and secular liberalism are both secular. Supporting secular conservative causes produces some fruit, but it does not produce good fruit that is lasting. Power does not lie in the institutions of church or state. Real power is in the people; people of faith working to advance the Kingdom of God on earth simultaneously through the three God-ordained institutions—family, church, and government. Western Christian tradition puts a progressive limitation on government power. The “divine right” is in God, not the church or the state.
Exercise Dominion
1. The Bible should apply to all of life, including the state. The decentralized Christian state should enforce biblical civil law.
2. The responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God’s glory, including the environment, education, enterprise, economics, and enforcement of law.
Capturing state apparatus and enforcing biblical law or setting up a theocracy on a pervasively unbelieving populace is not one of the hidden objectives of the Christian Right. The church is not engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right wing politics in order to gain political power, which they will then use to “spring” biblical law on our nation. Politics or the state is not a chief sphere of dominion.
Conservatives believe in social change. Liberals also believe in social change. But Liberals believe that social change is the effect, almost exclusively, of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed governed health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means — secular education, welfare programs, healthcare, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration.
When Liberals see Christians supporting and working toward social change, they presume that they are interested in political power. Not so. Liberals believe in social change exclusively by means of political activism, and they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.
There are so many people out there just like Rick. From what I see, Christianity today and Christ are almost two different ways of life.. I don’t think, from reading the Bible, that Christ meant for his name to be part of what we call Christianity today. If we don’t get back to Christ then we can expect more and more Ricks.
The Truth Project, although I haven’t been through it all, is a perfect vehicle to get us back to where Christ wants us.
Here’s my view:
I find it disturbing when Christians do not seem to acknowledge or fully appreciate the unique position that God has placed us in as citizens of the United States of America.
The system of government in the United States is designed for the participation of its citizens in the due process of law, and, as such, this places all of its citizens in the position to influence and vote on the laws that govern our nation.
Whether one is a Christian or not, we recognize that all laws have a moral basis. Every single law in existence has, at its core, some root in a moral truth. So, the question becomes “on who’s morality will those laws be based?”
Those who are not Christians seem to have no problem with the idea of using their influence to change the laws to fit their own view of the world, and neither should Christians. But, it’s funny - Non-Christians will impose their own form of morality on Christians, while throwing a tirade when Christians do the same.
My vote is no. We need to stand in the public square in whatever form that takes and speak for the truth that is only found in Jesus Christ (John 14:6),the Leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13) and God’s inspired word to us the Bible. This is our firm foundation and we need to firmly stand on it. God will bring about a theocracy if it is his desire and not ours to hopefully make our lives easier.
no to theocracy in government… yes to theocracy of the heart and soul of us believers in Jesus.
it’s funny that extreme secularists want no part of God or the influence of people that ascribe to a belief in Him…. if it wasn’t for the influence of those that ascribe to some inkling of accountability to a Higher Power or a Holy God, then our democracy wouldn’t work at all …
who can conduct business transactions and make govt. work if there is no valid basis for ethics, responsibility, care for the common good etc.
i can’t believe i’m writing in the blog. my wife and i just laugh at the thought of people that spend so much time blogging… we say “who has time to do that?!:)” i live with 4 women: one wife and 3 daughters…now i know why God had me get a master’s degree in counseling before i got married:)
blog away,
troy
Dr. Tackett,
I am a Christian in the US military, which is “ground zero” for those who think that “Dominionist Christians” are trying to take over the world or bring about the second coming.
There ARE some Christians who DO want to establish a theocracy in the US, though I suspect their numbers are much smaller than some would claim. It is a grievous stereotype to assign to a group the attributes of a few.
In the end, though, I think its a faux argument. It’s a “shocking accusation” that’s easy to raise and may arouse the anxieties of even the average non-Christian. But its a non-issue. No mainline denomination, nor any leading “religious figures,” advocate such a cause. While Christians may advocate viewpoints that align with their worldview (against abortion, for example), every citizen is allowed to espouse, organize, and attempt to establish their personal view, religious or not.
To answer your question, you basically asked once whether you’d rather hire an outstanding atheist or a mediocre Christian.
To ask the logical question, how do you think Christians should respond to those who make such accusations? “Ridiculous” or not, they may be having an impact on faith in the public square–particularly for those of us in the military.
I believe that, in a sense, every government is a “theocracy”. It’s just a matter of identifying who is the “god” of that theocracy. Every government is founded upon some belief system, some set of ideals and standard of right and wrong. When a government sets out to make and enforce laws, it must decide what behavior will be legal and what will be illegal. It does so based upon the underlying belief system of those in power. So, in effect, every government is a theocracy.
So, to answer Del’s question, “Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward a “theocracy”?” In the sense I gave above, I believe the answer is yes! As Christians, we should always be striving to see God’s standard of right and wrong implemented as the basis of our government and our laws. We either do this or we abdicate this responsibility to others who will see that the standards of their “gods” are imposed upon society.
Don’t be fooled… Rick is working toward a “theocracy” just as much as those he opposes.
In every generation, authentic “Christianity” is challenged. It can not be any other way. The TRUTH and the LIAR cannot coexist peacefully. In the most recent centuries (5+), many believers, not residing in America, have suffered death for their confession of faith in Christ as the only God and LORD in the flesh for man’s redemption and salvation.
While uncomfortable, and sometimes sacrificial, the need for an environment that calls true believers to “take a stand” and be clearly identified as followers of Christ is absolutely essential. In the vacuum of no conflict, there is little dependence upon Christ, little experiential knowledge of His supernatural power, little evidence of genuine conversion, and the list goes on. While often not pleasurable, the real life test(s) that gives us the opportunity to choose to follow Christ when the environment is decidely less than friendly, is essential. To do that as the saints of old, with the grace and love of God honors Him, and provides living evidence of the Gospel to those blinded by the darkness.
May God help us to stand the test and reach our generation.
In John 16:33, Jesus says…
“In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.”
If Jesus has overcome the world, then why would we have to pursue a theocracy?
I don’t think the Christian faith demands a theocracy per se, although it does demand that certain natural laws and rights be observed, such as those recognized in our Declaration of Independence. Our faith is a personal faith that we are to live out in public. It is not a political faith. The NT Church is one that lives out its faith no matter what the political regime is at the time.
My understanding of the Christian world-view is that we should live our personal lives as a theocracy - but avoid such in a national, governmental context. It just does not, and cannot work until Jesus returns.
Something that grabs my attention, though, is all the comments about the Christianity of the Founding Fathers. Some of them were obviously Christian… but, some notables were self-professed (mere) Deists, and some members of the Masonic Lodge, an organization that is the antithesis of Christianity.
The “theocracy” now being engineered, world-wide, by highly positioned Masons, toward a One-World government will not have Jesus Christ as its head. They worship and serve someone very different.
I believe a “theocracy” will indeed be set up, but it won’t be one that will be kind to followers of Jesus.
Del,
Thank you for having introduced the Truth Project to everyone so as to keep the current debate over theocracy alive. I am thankful we don’t live in a theocracy. Look at those countries where the state and religion are one and there you have no freedom of conscience. In those places the state thinks for you and your independent thinking is a threat. Far better to be in a country founded on religious principles where all people are created in His image and the possibility of such people recognizing this fact draws them toward faith in His Son.
Thus, the challenge before those of us who claim to be his disciples is to share this possibility not just here in the U.S. but to the ends of the earth.
While there is an element in Christianity that distorts Scripture to the point that some Christians adopt a “Kingdom Now” mentality, the Church will not bring in the Kingdom by either force or election. Christ will set up His own Kingdom and only then will the world have a true Theocracy, whether the Ricks of the world like it or not.
Maranatha!
If the question were, “does Kenny wan’t a Theocracy?”, then the answer would be an easy and resounding YES. As to the question of whether the Bible calls us to a theocracy, I’m not so sure the answer is quite as apparent.
The Bible is clear that the nation that seeks God will receive blessings in return. In addition, there are always inherent blessings to any group, society, or nation that follows his laws. Our country is (or was) a great example of peace and prosperity for Christians and non-Christians alike because of our moral standards which result in lower crime, people taking care of each other, etc…
My favorite way of looking at it came from a wonderful man’s radio show, Dr. D. James Kennedy. He told of a man that asked his pastor “Pastor, should Christians be involved in politics”? The Pastor replied “Of course not, let’s let the Atheists run the country”!
So to say that the bible commands us to search for a Theocracy may be an overstatement. However, shouldn’t common sense be enough of a mandate?
And finally, if God is the one who places all people in their seats of authority, shouldn’t those people be expected to follow his rules?
Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward a “theocracy”?
No. We are very specifically told to live as good citizens of this world, whatever the government, in order to glorify God.
The problem with the idea of theocracy is that until God himself fills the role of head-of-state it is a logical contradiction. A theocracy relies on fallen men to speak for a holy God until God speaks for himself. Therefore any “theocracy” is in effect a religious autocracy or oligarchy (which I believe has been tried once or twice).
Furthermore, in my humble opinion, a theocracy would be an attempt to decrease our reliance on God. There are two passages I think support this:
1 Sam 8:6-8 - Israel was crying out because their current system of government was corrupt. In asking for a new system of government, specifically a king but more generally a protector, they were rejecting God as their protector.
John 9 - When the apostles asked Jesus why the blind man suffered, the answer was not because of his or his father’s sins, but to glorify God. This statement goes to the heart of man’s desire to control his environment vs. God’s desire for man to trust in Him.
We have the same desire as the nation of Israel in Daniel’s time and as the apostles. We want predictability and control over our environment. The desire for a theocracy is the desire to become more comfortable by controlling your environment. This has never been the nature of God’s plan for His children. Over and over again God makes His most loyal children the least comfortable. Does He do this for their sins or for the sins of their fathers? NEITHER! He does it for His glory! What happens after you build your theocratic nation? If you are obedient, don’t you then leave it and seek out the lost of non-theocratic nations? Does the theocracy have ANY impact on the lost within it? Why would we waste our time trying to impact transient providential matters when we could be doing God’s work that he has SPECIFICALLY asked us to do instead of trying to impose our timeline on what God has already promised?
In summary, a theocracy is a futile (or is it feudal) endeavor because it is logically inconsistent until it is unnecessary. God has given us work to do and we should work on that vice trying to control our environment as if God were small.
I enjoyed reading comments for this question. I am a student of American History, I contend that the founding fathers had a unique view of government. It came from the Bible and Calvanism. They believed that man was in a fallen state and had to be restrained from his evil tendencies. They clearly called for the government to take care of the evil doers and for the government itself to have restraint so it wouldn’t become tryranical. The Bible and it’s teachings were encouraged at every level. They believed that being a good Christian also made you a good citizen. They believed that unbelievers had rights in our society, but Christian principals were to dominate thier actions and obligations toward others. So, while our government was not a Theocracy it was hopeful in evangelising itself and the world. Some experiements in theocracy were tried by the puritans . They tried to punish people who committed idolatry etc. It became clear to our founding fathers that thoughts an ideas of the hearts were not to be punished as they in themselves weren’t harmful. The sinful acts against indiviuals and society by a person were to be judge and punished. ie murder,thievery, etc. They had laws in place that people who wanted to hold public office had to be members of a Church. Honesty was the most esteemed virtue of those running for government offices at that time.
Religion is a system of beliefs. There are established religions and then there are personal religions where people assemble their own collection of beliefs. But EVERY person has a religion (system of beliefs).
Every law that was ever made is based on one belief on an issue versus all other beliefs on that issue. Politics is the discussion of those beliefs, trying to persuade others that one belief is better than the others.
For example, our community had a debate about high school lunch policy, a seemingly non-religious topic. Students were going off campus for lunch but sometimes got into fatal car accidents. So some parents wanted a closed campus for lunch, believing it was the safest policy. Other parents believed that the students were responsible enough that the campus should remain open. So there were 2 beliefs on this issue. No matter which way the school board decides to rule they are selecting one belief over the other, and the other side is no longer able to practice their belief.
Thus we can never have true “freedom of religion”, or freedom to practice one’s beliefs, because EVERY law is based on one belief at the expense of all other beliefs on that issue. There is only freedom in so far as no law restricts that belief.
Therefore, it is impossible to separate politics from religion because they are really the same thing: they are both based on beliefs. All you can do is choose which belief (religion) will determine the laws of the land. You CAN separate A religion from politics, but you can never separate religion in general from politics.
Today, under the guise of “separation of church and state” people are trying to isolate a religion (Christianity) from politics but only end up inserting their own religion (humanism, atheism) in its place.
Thus EVERY nation is a theocracy in that it uses beliefs to determine its laws. It may follow one religion (such as Islam) or it may draw from several religions, using some beliefs for some laws but other beliefs for other laws.
The issue then is WHICH religion, or religions, will be used to determine the laws. Which theology will be the basis for the laws?
In some nations the theology that is used is determined by one man. But in America the theology is supposed to be determined by the majority of the citizens. (However, judges are usurping that authority.)
1 Tim 2:1-2 says we are to pray for kings so that we can live godly lives. This implies that we are to ask God for laws that will allow us to live according to the beliefs of the Christian religion. Since, in America, we also have the opportunity to influence those laws we should do so. And most certainly we should not endorse rulers who would introduce laws that would go against the ability to live in obedience to God.
Almost all of the Old Testament deals with kings and nations. God expected the nations to reflect his character. The New Testament deals with our individual lives. As Del pointed out in Lesson 10, America has uniquely combined these 2 concepts. The job is to reason in the marketplace daily so that the citizens will endorse laws based on a Christian worldview (belief system) rather than something else.
Sounds to me as though the Holy Spirit is working in Rick more than he knows!! It sounds as though he is so desperately trying to hold onto his depravity and is one who is truly afraid to look into the face of God for fear of what he will see in himself.
As believers, a theocracy would equal a utopian society if all of the people were unified in their beliefs. As long as free will remains a factor in our lives, I feel the best we can hope for would be for us to bring God back into existence in our state.
Do most people take the time to ask what theocracy means for Christianity? Most people treat the word as synonymous with dictatorship. Theocracy, Christianly-speaking, means the rule of the law of God (which is the Bible). What does Scripture teach? Two principles relevant to civil government are the division of authority because God is sovereign and the diffusion of power because man is depraved. In other words, at the most basic level, a constitutional monarchy such as Britain had and America’s republic reflect key Christian theocratic principles.
And because there is no such thing as a realm of moral neutrality, the civil government will always be a “theocracy” of one sort or another. Today we are moving increasingly towards Secularist “theocracy”, which is a brutal regime as Canada can tell you. There is also the threat of Islamic theocracy. Christians who reject the notion that our ethics and God’s truth should dominate in the public square the way our forefathers of Christendom did, lack the faith and vision necessary to withstand the pressure from all alternatives.
This is the first time I’ve commented to this website, perhaps it’s because after reading some of your blogger’s comments, I feel inadequate to express myself in such learned or elequent terms-
but God recently revealed to me a Bible passage that hit me between the eyes on this subject. I was trying to determine (under my own thought processes) who to vote for in the California primaries. I was listening to close friends and acquaintences, the local radio talk show host, even Dr. Dobson for wise council and insight, and was leaning heavily toward one specific candidate. Then I read Deut. 17:14-18 and I realized that I could not in good concience vote for this man. The passage reads: “When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.”(NIV) God knew that his people would move away from a TRUE theocracy- that which is totally dependant on God, and would want their government to have all the worldly trappings that are impressive to non-believers, but He cautioned them to find a King who didn’t care about impressing the world by worldly standards. God called for a leader who had God’s people’s best interest at heart. He called for a man who put no other God but the one true God before himself- not just a good man, but GOD’S MAN. A humble man who did not consider himself fit for godhood. A man who walked in the ways of the Lord, heart, mind, body and soul, one actively committed to knowing God’s way and ruling a nation by it. These passages show that this was not a suggestion by God, but an imperitive! And this must be an imperitive to believers in this day and age as well. Do I believe in a theocracy? In as far as God has given man choice in his ultimate destiny, no. Each man must have that freedom of choice. But for a Christian, our freedom of choice must be surrendered to God’s perfect will or how do we call ourselves a Christian? And if that means casting our vote for those who would rule under the name Christian in order that our lost women and men like Rick would be ruled justly, then yes, I will stand up boldly and make that choice at the polls, with no apologies for my choice. To a Christian, we ARE our brother’s keeper and will act to secure their and future generations national best interests, knowing that God has plans to give us a hope and future as long as we do things HIS WAY.
God will bring it about in His own time. It is Christ in us that is the hope of glory. As I die to myself and let Him live through me, He will accomplish His purpose. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened that He cannot save.” It doesn’t matter from God’s perspective whether His kingdom is advancing in communism, totalitarianism, or democracy (but I’m thankful I live in a democracy) it will advance. And when He has gathered His own from every tribe, tongue and nation He will bring time to a close. He is so awesome our lives should be a living demonstration that no matter what the political circumstances; our God reigns! Praise His name!
It is my understanding from the scriptures that we are called to be witnesses of the Gospel of Jesus (G-d’s saving grace revealed though his son), calling for repentance to G-d. As such, the call is to any who will hear, who G-d has called. While such a call could be directed to either individuals or a nation (as the prophets of old), I see no evidence of it being a call to establish or subsume an actual MAN MADE governing system. It may seem tempting (relying on what we know as opposed to G-d’s power) to seek to establish such a system, but I do not understand that to be the case. In fact, anytime such a system has been established throughout the course of history, it has become ‘contaminated’ by our very sinful inclinations.
That being said, I also am under the understanding scripturally that we are to seek the best interests of the country in which we are found. As such, we should, from a Christian perspective, understand that all people (as individuals or as a nation) reap what we sew, and, as such, we should seek to influence the minds of all around us appropriately (let your light shine) - which should have an effect on the policies of the nation. In addition, there may be Christian individuals who are called by G-d to make inroads into the government and it’s policies …. but this is not a biblical mandate for all Christians.
We must always remember that the kingdom to which he has called us is HIS kingdom and, following Christ’s example, it is not brought about by political manouverings nor by a physical revolution, but by a spiritual awakening which is ultimately dependant upon G-D’s power, not ours and which produces the fruits of the spirit not simply the binding restrictions of the law (although the law will always remain neccessary for those who do not have their minds set on the things of the spirit).
The question: “Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward, a ‘theocracy?’”
If we accept the defination of a theocracy as:
“government of a state by immediate devine guidence or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided” I would say yes we should seek and work toward a theocracy just as the Israelites did prior to Saul.
I am responding to the question: “Does a Biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward, a ‘theocracy?’” I’m writing my answer
before reading your commentary or any of the blog comments so as not to be swayed.
In the beginning was a theocracy. In a later time God established a called out people using Abraham as progenitor. These called out people, Israel or Jews, were governed by a theocracy. Still later God ruled through kings; the kings were to act as ministers of Jehovah God. The people for the most part were weak and easily led astray by disobedient kings and rejected the theocracy.
God prepared a new covenant presented in the New Testament that puts beleiving Christians under the authority of Jesus the Christ. Under the new covenant believing Christians are to obligated to support secular regimes, to obey our kings and governors and pray for them. So, for the time being, on earth. the Biblical Christian world view is toward a secular governance and not theocratic. New Testament Scripture supports this.
However, in the long view, Biblical Christianity is directed toward building the body of Christ on Earth and preparing for the formal return of the Prince of Peace, King of Kings and Lord of Lords to reign on Earth, a theocracy.
Therefore, I think the answer to the question is that a Biblical Christian worldview is to work toward making earthly governance the best it can be whle also working toward the kingdom return of Jesus the Christ to Earth, a theocracy.
We are to seek to be perfect. We are to be Christ-like. Therefore we should seek to have a theocracy. Otherwise the choice is to be ruled by a less that perfect cadre. So we have a choice to be ruled by perfection or something less that perfect, which opens up the avenues we have today in our society. If we truly believe in God and his word then why are we afraid of a theocracy?
Growing up when I was first learning to build things; desks, shelving, storage buildings etc, I had to first follow the instructions step by step. As I matured I discovered I could do these things without having to “recheck” each measurement or rule. It became “natural” to me, a part of who I am.
My wife has transcribed medical dictation so long there are times when she will go a full page of typing or more and she could not tell you what she has typed but everything is perfect. She said it just “flows through her.”
Most of us can recall a time on a long trip or driving to work where you are 5 or 15 miles down the road but you do not recall each individual step getting there.
If we were to “BE” christians and let Christ flow through us as a natural every moment part of life instead of stumbling through the rules, this Question would not be a concern. Christ would be so much of an everyday part of our lives that our surroundings and government would fall in line.
We need to quit practicing christianity and start “BEING” Christians.
The founding fathers obviously had very strong feelings in this area as the very first of the Bill of Rights speaks to it. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
One of the biggest worries, if not THE biggest concern, of the founding fathers was that of an overly powerful, oppressive government. Many knew first hand the evils of such a system. They envisioned and indeed established a system by which the Christian faith, of which an overwhelming majority of them were a part, could flourish protected and unmolested by government. This, of course, did not imply that Christians were not to participate in government. In fact, many founding fathers believed religious training and upbringing to be a prerequisite for public office. (If you doubt, look at the history of the very first universities in this country and see that they all were originally seminaries.)
No. A theocracy is not the answer. It is unconstitutional, and in my mind, not supported by scripture. Our government, however, was designed for a moral citizenry and is best served by faithful Christians. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The founding fathers obviously intended Christians to hold public office, participate in government activities and hold their elected officials to high standards. A Christian who is led by the Holy Spirit, committed to and boldly speaks the Truth, and expects his leaders to do the same is a model American citizen. A theocracy would only lead to the debasement of true religion and suppress the freedom that comes from following the Truth.
Unfortunately, our form of government is about as good as it gets until that day when Jesus returns and establishes His kingdom. There will then be no need for governments as He will be our King.
Theocracy?? I look at what I learned in the truth project and how things were before we wanted “a king”… God was supposed to be our king… so yes it is supposed to be a theocracy but I don’t think we could pull it off this side of the judges because of our extreme falleness. I do dream of what it would be like to have a King Asa stand up and tear down all of our idols… What would a modern day Asa look like? It’s hard to imagine, but it could be done. Anyway, yes to theocracy but the way it looked before the kings.
Are we to seek a Theocracy? Of course, that’s what will happen when the King returns. What Christian (at least of those who actually know what the word means) doesn’t say “Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus”?
Are we to work for a Theocracy? Not here, not now. Our command is to “teach all people groups”. If we were doing our job - bearing the fruit of the Spirit - the task of evangelism would be so much easier. If the vast majority of the population were believers, there would be no discussion necessary. Instead we get into arguments with the unsaved about how everybody should be required to their lives. The unsaved have no more ability to live according to scripture than has a camel the ability to pass through the eye of a needle.
As for what to do about people like Rick? Pray for them. The command is clear - “be kind to your enemies, pray for them that spitefully use you.”
David was not above imprecatory prayer, why should we be? In light of eternity, it would be better for Rick to experience pain and suffering now and have it drive him to the creator before he dies, would it not?
I believe it was Stonewall Jackson who said, (and please forgive me if I am quoting the wrong person) “I would sooner face all the canons of the wicked, than suffer from the prayers of the righteous.” If God is the one who is after you - there is nowhere to hide.
I would like to see the USA return to the Bible studying days of its infancy, but even then they knew better than to establish a Theocracy. Requiring government officials to be Christians (our initial government)is good, requiring everyone to be a “Christian” (theocracy) is not. Our founding fathers understood that true Christianity doesn’t work that way.
I think that we will certainly have a theocracy during Christ’s millennial reign but the problem with having one now would be that it would be up to men to interpret God’s direction and command. Therefore we would have the fallible corrupting what would initially be infallibe and perfect.
I didn’t go through all the answers, so maybe someone has already said this. The answer is no. We are charged with the mandate to ‘go out and make disciples’. Do I believe there will be a theocracy? Yeah, but that will be Jesus’ responsibility to bring about, not ours.
First of all, I suppose I should apologize for my name (not all “Ricks” share the subject’s views.)
In a free society, the government and it’s laws are those of the “people”, and reflect its opinions, attitudes, and morals. One need not establish a theocracy in order to have a society and a culture that respects truth. Indeed, there can be no real freedom without it (They shall know the truth, and the truth shall make them free.)
An important element of a free society is the oportunity for one’s views to be openly expressed in the marketplace of ideas - this must not be restricted. However, I think many Christians, especially the more militant ones, are full of “hot air”, beating the wind, and clanging cymbals together (if you catch my drift).
I, myself, am guilty of this quite often. It is much easier, and strangely less threatening to write a congressperson, call a radio program, or write an opinion letter than it is to feed the hungry, heal the sick, bind up the broken-hearted, and generally be a neighbor and a friend. In short, we prefer to “preach” Jesus, instead of “being” Jesus.
I don’t believe Jesus calls us to change the government. He did however call us to change the world (society), and governments reflect their societies. We weren’t promised that it would be easy, or even convenient - just that it would be worth it. We do this when we “live out” our faith in practical terms for our neighbors, co-workers, friends, relatives, and the stranger we meet at the coffee shop or bus stop. We do it when we stop trying to force Jesus into the hearts of others and instead let him out of ours.
That will have the kind of transformation effect that is real and lasting, that will change society, culture, and yes - the government. Will it be permanent? No. Could it ever regress? Of course. And it will, the minute we get comfortable and start “preaching” Jesus and stop “being” Jesus.
Ron on 6-5-08 tells it just like I see it. The Bible says Jesus is coming back. He will establish His kingdom! Our purpose as believers is to be the salt and light here on earth.
Our small group just finished Lesson/Tour 6. It was awesome and my heart and soul were deeply moved by it. God is sovereign, He is in control, His plans, purpose and His word are always performed and all is part of God’s Larger Story.
I believe JEsus himself made the ultimate statement on this particular subject when he said to Pilate that His kingdom was “not of this world, if so my followers would fight, etc.” In another statement He said that he could have called tens of thousands of angels to free Him and do his bidding but he did not. It is true that we are to spread the good news at every oppourtunity but as for setting up a kingdom in which God rules, He has resered that time and place for Himself.
As I read the question and reflect on the teachings of Jesus, I am reminded that He did not advocate the establishment of a government (theocracy). Indeed, he did not impose anything on anyone.
I am reminded of a quote (that I cannot remember who to credit)”Christians don’t impose but propose”. This is what Christ did. The very story of God and how he created humanity is a proposal (freedom of choice) vs imposition (little robots who always do right).
We should not be bullied by secularists who claim we are imposing when indeed we are proposing truth. We have the obligation and freedom to enter the marketplace of ideas and advocate for ideals/morals as a better and right way to live. It seems that if anyone is imposing anything at all, it is secularists who militantly seek to impose their ideals/immorality on everyone else. Many even advocate stamping out religion. So, ask yourself, who is really imposing and who is lovingly proposing.
Many say they are christian - those who show before telling are likely to have a heart for Jesus. ‘Standing for the truth’ This slogan tempts many to use their heads when their hearts are far from reality in the Holy Spirit which softens and gives us an attitude of forgiveness and worship built in to us so that we can love.
Rick’s fear of “theocracy” is well founded…Christ railed against the theocrats in the ruling Jewish “theocracy” (Sadducees and Pharasees) and much of his recorded message reminds us to have a relationship with God, by asking Him to turn our stone hearts to flesh, not to follow a religious structure built on man’s dictates. So, Rick….well, he’s got a point…but he needs to open his mind and heart to the work of God’s word, and the Holy Spirit. Then he…and the rest of us…will truly have the “peace that passes understanding, all our days”…..
From the Pass of the North…and the Watchtower of the Rio Grande. HeavyDave
No, Salt & Light. Everywhere, Every Day, Every Believer, till He comes. He that has the Son has life, but he that has not the Son of God has not life, but the wrath of God abideth on Him. We ought to use our influence, prayers, and participation to secure freedom here and everywhere, but be sure that we give not just salt, but light. the night cometh, when no man can work.
Yes. The Christian worldview absolutely calls us to seek Theocracy. In order to have that, we must set up government under the one true God, according to His principles of grace, truth, sacrifice for others, and unconditional love for sinners. Thus, “Theocracy” is the Church - uncoerced, yet wholly authoritative - sacerdotium and regnum sans force, which is the teaching of Jesus. How to govern people outside the Church is a different matter entirely, and requires no small amount of subtlety with regard to the practice of justice and the role of the kingdom of God. Augustine’s City of God is the most authoritative (if not the only, nor the final) work on this matter.
I would have to say, “no”…not as long as man has a fallen nature. God demonstrated that with man’s fallen nature, a theocracy is really impossible. The nation of Israel asked for an idol shortly after receiving the law directly from God, Himself (in their hearing). Not long after settling the Promised Land, because of the corruption of Samuel’s sons, they asked for a human king (rejecting God).
Throughout history, cozy arrangements between religion and monarchies have not worked out so well (the temptation is too great for emperors/dictators to use religion as yet another tool to control the people)
The Founding Fathers of this nation recognized the corrupt heart of man and so framed the three branches of the government with checks and balances. Also they rightly separated the ministry of sword from church ministry with the establishment clause in the Constitution (preventing the government from establishing a national church).
So, while I don’t believe a theocracy in the true sense is possible in this fallen world, I do believe that Christians should be active in government and active in their communities. I also believe that the Founding Fathers built this country firmly on Biblical Christian principles. We need to return to educating our population on those principles.
Now I have a question for you: Is Secular Humanism a religion? Dewey and others in the Humanist Manifesto I called it that. Has the Government in essence violated the establishment clause by actively supporting the teaching of Secular Humanism religion in our schools? Should Christians take them to task for that?
Well, a Theocracy, what would the Church Lady (of SNL) say - isn’t that from “THE DEVIL”? Not to rely on a liberal confusion of christaian women everywhere, but Satan would love to squalsh what this country stands for by having it turn into a Theocracy. Afterall, a true Democracy is only free when all people have the freedom to believe (or not believe) in God. Also, as our founders were all too aware, the freedom of speech to speak our beliefs in public, to hang them on our walls at home or at work, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunatly, due to many factors over the last century mostly, Christians have become afraid to challenge others of different beliefs. Especially Muslims and atheists. It seems we do face reprisal and that everything seems to go their way in the court systems. To say or display our beliefs is getting people taken to court. That is a very costly situation as well as time consuming. It is a very sad comment that the very principles that founded this country are the very principles that are being abused to destroy it. By getting in our faces and accusing Christains of being the bully and trying to change the format of this nation they push us into the human fight or flight syndrom. Let’s face it, it is is far easier and more comfortable to flee. Satan wins, he gets what he wants,the best prize he ever got, silent Christians. So, to answer the question posed in the beginning, no satan does not want a Christian theocracy, it would destroy his rule here on earth alot faster. But he lives for chaos. If we are to defeat him at his own game we need to be armed with the truth, ready to speak it and follow up by standing our ground. We do not have to start a fight. I know that this is hard to do as I write this, but we must realize that they will not take away our birthday if we say to those who are aggressively challenging us, to stand our ground and firmly state our belief in God and Christ and that we love them in His name, but we will not be silent anymore.
Jacob T.,
So we do have some common ground in believing that Christians are mandated to seek for biblical theocracy. You bring up a good point and I certainly don’t have all the answers and no human being does. But that doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility to seek for the rule of God in all areas of life.
The sphere of the state is separate from the Church but the truth of it’s role and function must come from the Church. Even so no one can give all the answers to the complexities that arise in this sphere. That’s why it’s so important to have Godly men and women in this area. Why did Solomon pray like he did when he became king of Israel? Because he didn’t have the answers. Why did Jesus promise to send the Spirit of Truth? Because truth is not inherent in us and neither is it given in totality in the bible.
In the bible I find principles and foundational truths in how to relate to the complexities of raising teenagers but the bible by itself would fall short in the every day situations that arise. I need wisdom from above from a Person that is much more than a text! The same thing is true in how I relate to our employees. (Pray for Heath and his wife Tara, Heath wants to talk about committing his life to Christ tonite.)
I think that there are biblical priciples of “ruling” that apply to all areas of life including the state. Such as faith in Christ cannot be imposed on anyone, not even on my children. No position of authority is for one’s own personal gain or benefit but is an area of servanthood.
At the same time it gets really confusing if we try to apply truths that relate to me personally, to the Church, or to the home that are meant for the sphere of the state. Dr. Tackett’s exposition of this in the TP is the best that I have ever heard.
The role of the state is not to prevent people from sinning but is meant to provide civil security. “Pray for kings that we may live godly and peaceable lives in all boldness.” ITim.2:2. (Ironically, we have some Christians who pray the exact opposite!)
Mike W.
P.S. Raising teenagers is our wonderful opportunity!
Thanks for this great forum you’ve created and the excellent question you posted. The discussion it generated was exciting to read.My quiet time this morning was in Ps 71-75 and I was meditating on similar issues before I read the blog postings.
The psalmist invokes God to arise “because haunts of violence fill the dark places of the land” 74:18-23. It’s our responsibility to speak against spiritual ignorance and arrogance, and to be actively engaged in the overthrow of ungodly power (75:4-5; 9-10). In His power, we need to be engaged in presenting the Gospel light, but the human heart either rejects or accepts the Truth. The Kingdom of God is in the hearts of men; ultimately, acceptance of the King cannot be regulated. Who would enforce a Christian theocracy–”For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).
A theocracy in it’s basic terms is a “government of state professedly in the name, and under direction, of God;” Webster’s Dictionary for Everyday Use 1986 edition. This requires two things: The first is to profess the name of He who has established and maintains their government and the second is the government is under God’s direction.
The second of these statements is true for all governments. Romans 13 puts this in context starting in verse 1 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” All governments have been established by God. So, this leaves us with just the first statement to make a theocracy which is a government that professes that God is the one who has established and maintains their government.
The question that needs asked here is does God want all governments to acknowledge that God is the one in control or is God happy with us taking the credit for all of “our” accomplishments in ruling “ourselves”? Daniel Chapter 4 answers this question. The King of Babylon had a dream and Daniel is interpreting the dream. Starting in verse 24 “This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules. Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”
God establishes governments and their rulers and he desires that the rulers acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over their kingdoms. So the answer is a resounding YES!
The following is one of three “Sample Letters to the Editor” that David Barton has written so that us laypersons could use it as an example - this one is called “Theocracy” (these are located at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=113 ):
“Theocracy”
In a recent letter, the writer took the same position as Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and parroted AU’s offensive mantra, associating a theocracy or theocratic state with the “Religious Right.” Such claims are patently false.
First, to have a theocracy in America, the Constitution must be replaced with a totalitarian dictator who speaks on God’s behalf (i.e., a revival of “the Divine Right of Kings” doctrine). I challenge AU, or anyone else to identify which part of the “Religious Right” is calling for such a government.
Second, the “Religious Right” leaders (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, et. al) are calling for an increased respect for the Constitution and its actual wording, urging citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. The real “crime” of these leaders is not that they want a theocracy (which they don’t) but that they rightfully want legislators to make national policy instead of judges. Should that occur, AU or groups like them could not win another battle, for Americans overwhelmingly reject their policies (e.g., “under God” in the Pledge - a phrase opposed by AU but supported by 87% of Americans).
The rabid opposition to public religious expressions is often irrational, In fact, a New Jersey bill proposing that students begin each day by reciting the first 56 words from the Declaration of Independence was loudly denounced as “a thinly-veiled attempt to put prayer in schools” - the first step on the road to a - you guessed it - “theocracy!” Reading the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to a theocracy??? It is time for that term to become anathema in public discourse.
During the Civil Rights Era, we gradually learned that if certain pejoratives were invoked, the individual doing so was a racist. Similarly, today we need to learn that when the emotive and pejorative term “theocracy!” is invoked, it is usually by an intolerant secularist who wants all public religious expressions expunged from society.
I do not think it is our commissioning from God to set up a theocracy on earth. If this were to be imposed, I believe it would violate God’s fundamental character - that He has done everything out of love, which includes giving Man free choice. I like what an earlier commentor wrote about clarifying “imposing” and “proposing”. With the work of the Holy Spirit, the more I look at the face of God, I see and cannot dispute His Truth. I do not see God imposing Himself, but rather inviting and proposing Himself to me and to anyone willing to relate with Him. When I listen to other voices that are not God’s, the truth looks different to me. Decisions I make are then influenced under, at best, half-truths, and guide my thinking - like setting up external things to change internal things about me (theocracy). I see myself (and the rest of mankind) as struggling to keep looking at the face of God and His truth when so much of me (us)wants to just run and hide under or behind self-imposed fig leaves. I see those who would try to “impose” theocracy as taking Spiritual reins they are not intended to have. It is my thought that those who would advocate a theocratic government would be attempting to construct something from the outside - in. I have experienced and believe God’s Truth and heart change work comes from internal reconstruction. That’s why I think it is very necessary that true believers would take steps to re-educate themselves about the mindset of America’s Founding Fathers. I have gone through the Truth Project once. One of the most important things I think I learned is that if I really believe that God is God and He has “The Truth”, the argument and emotion “can” be taken out of discussion with others who just do not know “The Truth”. I believe God’s “Truth” is powerful. His “Truth” really can stand alone. I think if a theocracy were sought, it would not emulate the character of Christ, which really is about (borrowing a saying from a 12 step philosophy) - a program of attraction rather than promotion. I believe and rest in that He wants ALL to come to Him because they have made a choice and seek Him with a hungry heart. Then, they would discover His love first and because of that, embrace His Truth.
For the record, at this late date, Michael Batley (June 5, 11:18pm) took my “Render unto Caesar” statement in an opposite direction from my intention.
Christ’s statement seems to imply participation in the political realm. Spiritual too for that matter. A unique separation with some areas God’s and some areas Caesar’s, yet an intermingling as God’s people mix with civic life.
To be clear, my quoting of Scripture was not done to be “flip”.
I find it very ironic how Christianity today is characterized by anti-theocracy and anti-”old testament laws”. I find this to be disappointing, actually.
I have studied numerous volumes pertaining to dispensationalism, so-called new covenant theology and even theonomy, and I have personally concluded that the only thoroughly consistent and defensible view of the whole bible, especially the new testament, is that of theonomy. That is not to say that I agree with every interpretation offered by theonomists today, but as far as the Bible is concerned, I find it to be the only fully defensible system of Christian ethics according to God’s Word.
The new testament explicitly portrays the laws of God revealed in the Old testament as consisting of two parts: 1) moral laws which reflect God’s unchanging Holy Character and 2) restorative laws teaching a “gospel” in picture (i.e. ceremony, repetition, ritual) forms. And the New Testament only provides warrant for the abrogation - the no longer needing of - the restorative laws which taught the people the majority of their theology in Old Testament culture.
Therefore I believe that every restorative law pertaining to the culture of Israel and it’s particular form as a theocracy is no longer valid - and indeed we are commanded not to observe it’s actual old testament theocratic form - because everything expressed therein has been typified in Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant era.
But the general moral precepts of God’s Moral law must still be binding, as is demonstrated throughout whole new testament. When God says “thou shalt not steal” all of the general moral precepts illustrated in the Old Testament must still be binding upon us too, because they are just that, illustrations of God’s unchanging holy law. Therefore I believe that Christians ought to apply the general precepts of God’s Moral law to our own society, and we ought to recognize that Christ is not some impotent king sitting on a futuristic “heavenly” throne, but rather He reigns now over the whole earth according to His revealed Word, and through us - His people who obey the unchanging precepts of His Word. We are to disciple all nations.
And who are we anyway to question God’s wisdom and think that we can implement laws for the “good” of society without FIRST consulting the principles, precepts and illustrations which God says are good?
No.
A Theocracy is what the nation of Israel rejected, when they rejected God for Saul. From that point on, God made a conscession to HIS people, instead of being governed by God, they would be governed by man, and the list of issues that they would have as a result of that choice.
If a theocracy is what God wanted to keep it as, HE never would have changed it. HE could have kept it just as it was, ignoring the cries of the people.
HE never wanted them to fall into the hands of men, yet HE allowed it, as they rejected being in HIS hands.
So, No, we are no longer in a theocracy, as was God’s original desire.
Since theocracy means “The rule of God” we could say in one sense a resounding yes. The rule or Kingdom of God is to come now within each of our hearts and in our conduct. We know that His rule will be fully established when Christ returns to set up the true theocracy as one person in this thread has said(Thy will be done…).
However, in the context of the earthly rule God has delegated that to man who is to rule in the fear of God. This rule has three basic spheres: 1. the family; 2. the church; and 3. the civil authority. Dr Tackett has added the others of 4. Labor or the free market. Each has their own jurisdiction and purposes which the others can never assume without “pathologies” as Dr. Tackett has shown us. All these spheres of authority are under the revealed law of God (Bible)as well as the Laws of God in nature (Romans 1:20).
However, when a family takes over the church or the civil authority then we get Patriarchies and the Divine right of Kings who rule the nation like a father rules the family demanding absolute obedience like a child owes to his father.
When the church authority rules the other two then we get an ecclesiocracy. Ecclesiocracy usually means rule by an institutional religious hierarchy like the Roman Catholic Church did throughout Europe and the Protestant Reformation was the reaction against it.
If the civil authority takes over the other two then we get what the 20th century gave us in civil tryannies.
What Rick wants to do is confuse us between theocracy and ecclesiocracy. There is a difference!
Rousas John Rushdoony pointed out this difference thirty years ago, early on in his book, The Institutes of Biblical Law: “Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture.” Thus, to argue that we cannot legislate morality because of the separation of church and state is a confusion that we must clear up. The question is whose morality are we to legislate? The ultimate Law-giver is God Himself so the answer is clear as Romans 13 states. This is what our Founders stated in the Declaration when they rightly placed all authority under the Laws of nature and nature’s God.
Further, the civil magistrates are ministers (deacons) of God bearing the sword to punish evildoers. Thus, it is incumbant upon the civil magistrate to understand what is evil and what is good which is obviously from God’s perspective (which is why Kings in the OT were commanded to write the Law of God out by hand every year). The lesson that the Truth Project and history taught us was that when the civil authority begins to forget that role monstrous barbarities occur.
Second, I believe, therefore, that it is incumbant upon believers to teach and train people to understand the commands of the Lord and the principles of the Scripture and how they would apply in public policy in all spheres of life which would include the structures of government (Matt. 28:18-20). This Great Commission is predicated on the statement of Christ that “all power belongs to me in heaven and on earth…” That gives us the authority to teach and preach with authority as the ambassadors of God.
For example, Isaiah teaches that God is our lawgiver, king and judge. He will save us. Since, only God who is perfect in character can assume all three forms of governmental power at the same time, only He can rule absolutely. This is an expression of His sovereign authority and power. The Bible teaches explicitly that man is sinful and abuses these powers.
Thus, did our Christian forebears write (see e.g. the book “Lex Rex”)that for man to assume these powers without checks and balances would lead to tyranny whether it is in the home, church or in the civil realms. Sinful man can never handle 2 or more of these powers at the same time. History is replete with examples of the abuses of power.
Thus, our Founders, rightly reasoned from this Biblical principle of sovereignty and separated these three forms of governmental authority placing proper checks and balances within the system that would release the positive power of each branch while checking the abuses. A line by line reading of the Constitution will reveal that the form of government we have in the Constitution is based upon the truths and principles of the Bible which has released the greatest expression of liberty in history. (See Benjamin Morris back in print book, “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” which gives all the documentation one needs to show that our form of social and civil institutions were based upon a Biblical worldview, largely Protestant).
This is what we who do advocate the application of biblical principles in public policy mean. But the Ricks of this world want to silence any discussion let alone application of biblical truth and principles in the public sphere through name calling and stereotypical bigotry which poisons the well of any person seeking to apply Biblical principles towards public policy.
I am reminded of Flash in the truth project series as I write these words and causing me to remember that we must be able to speak the truth in love to those who oppose and to those who are ignorant. In this world we will have the challenge of those who oppose God. But we must be of good cheer and continue to be salt and light in this world.
Respectfully submitted…
In a word, no. God put people in positions of power to govern, some do it wisely, most don’t, but we still are to obey those in authority over us. However, if what they require of us puts us in conflict with what God requires of us, then we must choose to obey God.
DAVE–
Sorry it took so long. Since I’ve been gone, many of these comments have touched on what I was trying to get at. It is not the job of Xians to force a worldview which is exclusively Xian on a secular society.
Why?
Not because I am PC, or a liberal, or unwilling to stand for my beliefs, but because to do so is to damage the Kingdom of God itself.
You can advocate conservative causes. Great, more power to you. I may be a social liberal. Guess what? We are still brothers in Christ, and we can still be bringing the Kingdom of God to earth together.
How?
Because I believe that the Kingdom of God is distinct and separate from Fallen, Earthly politics.
A theocracy in our hearts and minds is what God requires. When we submit to Him in our own lives, we use the democracy we have been given to please Him.
Dear Del,
Jesus’ own words indicate that a theocracy is not possible in this life. He said the “weeds” will grow up with the “good stalks” and to let them grow together until the end when God will bring about the separation according to his will.
Not only that, but the truth that we are to be “in the world but not of the world,” implies that the world will continue strong in unbelief even as Christians face persecution from it.
So, no, there is to be no theocracy. God’s kingdom is something of the heart in this life (Romans 14:17), not something physical, national, political, etc.
Nevertheless, we are to be about the work of spreading the gospel as the unseen kingdom of God grows and is manifested by people sharing Christ and loving even our enemies with a love only the Holy Spirit can bring about.
Thanks for your good work!
In Christ,
Don Johnson
The problem is not theocracy, there will be only one true theocracy, and that will be established at some point in the future by Christ Himself. The problem is people who twist and distort organizations to their own ends. Some will use their “god” to do this. Frankly I don’t think there is a religous organization in this country that should survive beyond it’s first founder. The longer a church or organization exists after the first generation of that organization, the more likely it is to have codified and established an internal structure to defend itself from the appearance of death, becoming a “whitewashed sepuchre”. All organizations should and will die, just like all humans die. But until “perfect is come” then we’ll all just have to deal with this fallen world and fallen men who try to lead it. We need to be continually renewed in our mind, not calcified.
Great advice, Clearly explained and easy to follow. Thank you