Redux from Deux Ego:
Theocracy vs. Republican Democracy
I don't like the idea of a theocracy. Though it appears to be the government-of-choice of many Christians, I actually believe that a theocracy is dangerous, and would threaten religious freedom. There are Christians who believe that a theocracy is the only biblical form of government - but what kind of theocracy are they referring to? Two definitions exist. One refers to "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority," and the second, "government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God." I believe that only the second of these is an adequate, biblical form of government - but unfortunately, it is not available to us today. God no longer governs a nation or a country directly - and thus we are left with the first definition only. I believe this option to be a foolish one, and I will explain why.
To begin with, the logistics of such a government are not as simple as they first appear. What "religious authority" will govern? Islam? Christianity? Buddhism? If this theocracy is to be a biblical theocracy, then Christianity seems to be the obvious choice. But then what particular brand of Christianity will we choose? Presbyterian? Baptist? Calvinist? Each has a slightly different theology, and each has its own following. Clearly, to choose one denomination over another would cause divisions.
But what if we use the universal principles of the Church? Principles that everyone agrees on? Things like the Ten Commandments. Wouldn't that work? Well, let's see. In that case we would make laws like "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not give false testimony," "Do not commit adultery," and "Do not covet-" - but wait a minute. Do not covet? How can we make that into a law? Who is going to know if I am coveting or not? Clearly we can't make all biblical commands into laws. But if we choose only the laws that can be enforced, then how is it any better than a secular government? Even a good secular government is based on moral laws that consider murder to be wrong. (Granted, in our government we try to redefine murder, but at least we generally agree that murder is a bad thing.)
So now what? Our laws are nearly the same as those of a secular government - possibly better, but very similar. But who enforces these rules? Remember, the definition says a "religious authority." That is presumed to be the Church. But we don't have a universal, official Church of Christianity. We would need something akin to the Catholic Church, complete with Pope, Bishops and so on down the line. And that brings me to my second point; that history proves that theocracy does not work.
Anyone with a basic grasp of history will be able to recall several examples of failed theocratic government. Think of the Papal States, ruled by various Popes; think of the Vatican; think of the Church of England that choked religious liberty during the 17th century. Even theocracy on a local scale is impractical at best, and dangerous at worst, when it produced persecution in the form of the Salem Witch Trials and other similar incidents. History seems clear enough - put absolute political power into the hands of a "religious authority" and you lose freedom of religion.
My solution is not separation of church and state, but careful integration of the two. I believe that the Founding Fathers planned the most practical, carefully thought out government that has ever existed in our history. Because of their forethought, we have been able to enjoy an amazing amount of religious freedom. Why? Because instead of handing political power to the church, they used biblical principles to curtail the power of government. A republican democracy is not the perfect form of government - there will be no "perfect form of government" until Christ returns. But I believe it is infinitely better than a theocracy. When Christ comes back to rule the world, then we may have our theocracy. Until then, we're better off sticking to what we have.
