Saying No to Theocracy

So my nephew Troy, a Presbyterian Pastor, sends me a link to Richard Mouw's recent post A Larger View of Theocracy. Mouw writes:

“Theocrat” functions these days a lot like “pervert.” The people who think nothing of accusing other people of being perverts do not really expect the persons they are accusing to respond by saying, “Yes, I am a pervert.” “Theocrat” seems to function in pretty much the same way.

So he recognizes the negative connotations that go with the word. But Mouw is not at all uncomfortable with the term, writing "strictly speaking, anyone who believes in the God of the Bible is a theocrat."

I had to write back to my nephew that I didn't agree with Mouw on that point, but it deserves a larger context. It is hard to debate the issue, however, without some definitions.



Dictionary.com defines theocracy thus:

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

I gather Mouw is thinking in terms of the first definition, that if Christians want certain Biblical moral values encoded in our laws, we fit, generally speaking, the definition of theocrats. But I think there is more subtlety to the first definition and certainly the second doesn't fit the views of most Christians.

God is not recognized by most conservative Christians who care about politics as the "supreme civil ruler". Rather, God is the being whose character stands behind many, but not all, of our laws - the supreme civil ruler is, for us, a combinations of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. God is a cosmic ruler, but not a civil one. We want to give unto God what is God's, and are happy to render to Caesar what might be construed to be his.

Second, we do not want all the laws of the civil government to be "interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities". Clergy have no special status in our government to unilaterally interpret the civil law. This is a constitutional democracy. Neither the civil nor religious authorities are beyond question or above accountability. Our founding fathers saw plenty of abuses of power from both civil and religious figures. Limits on power are essential to democracy.

And what Christians generally and strongly do not want is "a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission." In fact, I think this is why secularists fear conservative Christians seeking influence, because they fear this is what we do want. And I argue strongly that we do not.

I, for one, do not want our foreign policy directed by Pat Robertson recieving his occasional "words of knowledge" from God on national TV with no one allowed to question whether his track record is any good (which it isn't). Neither do I want the National Council of Churches dictating social policy, which in turn would often affect taxes negatively and would often fly in the face of how most Christians have read scripture. I think Bush-derangement-syndrome folks who thing GWs support for Israel is totally based on the Left Behind books are wrong, but I fully understand the fear. We need more than a single voice advising our leaders. And quoting Bible verses doesn't usually inform our governing leaders well.

For example, the Bible tells us to care for the poor - it does not always tell us the best way to go about it, particularly at the level of federal government. It tells us to defend the innocent and the weak, sometimes that is to be done by being a good neighbor, sometimes it requires the actions of the police or the military. These are not always clear cut questions.

In the Old Testament, God went before the Israelites in a pillar of fire and revealed directly to Moses what the nation was to do. The kings of Israel were warned by prophets who, if one accepts the text at face value, had a fairly direct line to God about this or that trap or pitfall, warnings that often went unheeded. I am not aware of any prophets today who can call down fire from heaven or part the waters of Lake Michigan. So I am not sure I know of any advisors to any presidents who qualify for the office of a "priest claiming a divine commission".

Our form of government is based on general principles that are biblical, many of which are the stuff of general revelation, ideas and virtues shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, such as prohibitions on murder, theft and perjury. These are laws which affect all of society, not just the church. I'm 100% in favor of Christians arguing for and having the right to influence the government on a wide range of issues that effect all of society. I am not at all insistent that the church should have the power to insist that everyone be a Christian or to coerce folks to agree with us.

But I also believe, with our founding fathers, that absolute power corrupts absolutely, that because of human weakness our branches of government must be separated, terms of office should be limited, the right of redress of greivances is necessary. Malcolm Muggeridge once said something to the effect that the great contribution of Christianity to western culture was its pessimism. Where Christians most need to influence government may be exactly that. A healthy skepticism about power, clerical or secular, is necessary.

What we must have for democracy to work, is a belief that individuals have unalienable rights, given by someone or something higher than the government. That is not a theocratic idea, but it is a Christian one. We must believe that certain moral laws are unchanging and that even our rulers are accountable to "do justly". Again, that is not a theocratic idea, but a Christian one. Finally we must believe that human beings are always capable of being corrupted, hence there must be accountabilty and never a complete centralization of power. That is a Christian idea that is diametrically opposed to any sort of totalitarianism - whether it be secular totalitarianism or religious totalitarianism. Christian values serve everybody, not just Christians. Which is why I advocate them.

So let me be clear. I believe in a constitutional democracy based on broad Judeo-Christian values, but the word "theocracy" scares the dickens out of me and I do not favor it. All I really ask is that the government make no law establishing a religion as the religion of the country, be it the religion of a particular Christian sect, the religion of Humanist Manifestos I and II, or the religion of radical Islam. And I also insist that the government respect the second half of the phrase, that we make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion - which means Christians can and must vote, run for offices, join political parties, lobby for causes and do everything else citizens do. That is not theocracy. That is citizenship.

Hey Troy, thanks for the article, hope we get to converse more.