1. Theocracy means the rule of God.
2. God rules over all of creation, therefore, theocracy is a fact, regardless of who believes in it or accepts it.
3. Theocracy does have implications for civil governance and human society, but it pre-exists as a concept over and larger than civil government.
4. Most people who say they oppose theocracy do so because the term conjures up images of a totalitarian government and a rigid moral order that reflects the imposition of a minority on the whole society.
5. That is exactly the experience of Canada and other Western nations under the tutelage of the humanist religion. And the majority of our citizens seem content to let it unfold even if they disagree with it. This despite the fact that we know how these humanist/atheist experiments turn out: the former USSR, Hitler’s Germany, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, etc.
6. Considering how tolerant Canadians are of totalitarianism, Christians shouldn’t feel the need to distance themselves from the language of Christian government and theocracy, despite the myths about these ideas being oppressive.
7. Biblical theocracy refers to the rule of God through His law, not the rule of God through any particular person, and God’s law applies to all of life, so we need to understand how God’s law addresses a particular area of life in order to exercise God’s rule – theocracy – there.
8. Biblical theocracy advocates decentralization, balance of powers and shared leadership in every area of life. Organizational centralization is contrary to God’s law in family, church and state. Biblical theocracy leads to political models that reflect the principles of division of authority and diffusion of power.
9. God, and God alone, sovereign. Every human authority is exercised under God; all human power is delegated from and by God.
Amen! Great website.
Ray Perkins,
Michigan USA
Ray is correct. Great website. Will be back as often as time permits.
Is not a theocracy a religious government governed by the rule of God? There are numerous examples of Islamic theocracies. I don’t know of any Christian theocracies, other than perhaps the Vatican given that the Vatican is a state.
Do not theocracies impose its laws on all citizens regardless of their religious affiliation? If true, then the laws of a Christian theocracy would also apply equally to Muslims, Hindus, Budhists and other religions even though the laws are contrary to the religious beliefs of non-Christian citizens. In other words a theocracy is a form of despotic or tyrannical government.
By your definition, Canada is a theocracy, and so are all other democratic countries because no law in Canada probably has 100% support. That means that at least one person, and probably a lot more, are having laws imposed on them regardless of their own will, belief or religious affiliation. Hatred against Christianity is fanatical and leads to all kinds of bizarre objections to Christian governance that make no sense. The issue of imposing laws on people as a characteristic of theocracy is a red herring and a completely irrelevant point because that point does not distinguish theocracy from democratic gov’t, at least in terms of how most people attempt to distinguish those two forms of civil government.
Looking at point #8 on political models, it seems to be the whole intent of the Magna Carta, and the U.S Constitution, Articles 1 through 7, are the best historical examples of striking that balance of “the division of authority and diffusion of power” that man has ever been able to achieve, in order to preserve liberty.
The Magna Carta and U.S. Constitution are not things to be afraid of (except maybe socialists, Marxists or other pro-tyranny formulas). The intended common undergirding foundation of both of these examples is the Christian God of truth and order.
Amazing! Christian Governance is a concept that should be embraced by people who love maximized freedom within a fallen world.
Replying to a few of your points by number:
1. Your definition of Theocracy is incorrect. A Theocracy is leadership by a group of religiously motivated authorities. You definition assumes a god or gods exists, which is an unprovable assertion and thus not to be believed. This makes most of your points null.
3. Theocracy does not predate government, it is a form of government.
5. As always, a theist turns to comparison to Hitler. Nazi Germany was an self-identified Christian state. The others are communist states where the state is the object of religious fervor. In your desire for a “christian” state, you are exactly the same as an illiterate Soviet private guarding a camp where thousands are dying of starvation. You are motivated not by reason but by blind, foolish faith. Your blind foolish faith just has a different false object.
1. Why is your definition of theocracy THE definition. The proper Christian def. re. human society is the rule of God’s law, not the rule of any one person or group of people. Keep reading our website. We explain it here.
2. Theocracy is the rule of God over His creation, therefore it does indeed predate civil government. It has applications to civil government, but it predates it.
3. The comparison to Hitler was but one of several points. You were the one who chose to take issue with it and respond. I also referenced Communism, which is inherently atheistic, and which has killed tens of millions more people than even fascism has, in the former USSR, communist China, North Korea, and many other Asian and African countries.
1. I have as much authority to define it as you do. Plus, I have the OED on my side. There is no such thing as a “proper” Christian anything, including a definition.
2. Again, you assume the existence of a deity, which is an unprovable stance and thus to be ignored. Your position is meaningless unless you define and prove the existence of this God you posit.
3. Does the fact that the Hitler reference was presented with others make it any less wrong? No. I also briefly explained why your argument about the communist states was wrong yet you ignore that. Do you ever face a criticism head on? Your dancing around the point is tiresome.
Hammurabi, the sixth King of Babylon, set down a code of law approximately 350 years before Moses. While the law of Moses, regarded as the first comprehensive set of laws directly from God, was more detailed than the Code of Hammurabi… It is undisputable that at least 36 of those Babylonian laws are so close in wording and nature that one would have to assume that either Moses copied and expanded on them OR Hammurabi actually received God’s direction prior to Moses (although his allegiance was to Marduk – which I would expect you would term as a false god).
All of Hammurabi’s laws were secular in nature (e.g. no laws relating to God’s wishes). This civil government existed before God spoke to Moses, so I have to disagree with part of premise #3 (that theocracy pre-exists non-theocratic civil government). I disagree on the grounds of the facts presented.
Comparison of the Mosaic Laws to the Code of Hammuabi:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/codexhammurabi.html
As noted in points 1-3, our understanding of theocracy is that it is the nature of reality and God’s relationship to men, therefore, it pre-exists civil government, and its relevance to civil government is simply an application of the more fundamental pre-existing reality of man’s overall relationship with God.
I didn’t disagree with point #1, and #2 is stated as a current assumption. But #3 is clearly wrong based on the facts. Civil government preceded God’s word and theocracy.
The nature of reality (and the actual reality) is that the stone monument with Hammurabi’s civil laws preceded the writings of Moses.
John M,
Moses received the best education available within the court of the Pharoah of Egypt. Being groomed for stately office as a prince, he would’ve naturally been versed in legal codes and traditions. This facts is what people who recognize the providence of God in history would call “the providence of God” – the selection of a qualified candidate to receive the Law on Mount Sinai, and begin interpreting and adjudicating cases for the people, and eventually delegating this authority to the eldership.
The instance of similarity between codes (i.e. Tooth for tooth, etc.) does not necessarily mean that the Sinai code borrows (or ‘rips off’) from the Hammurabi code. It just demonstrates the existence of something it theological terms that is called “common grace”. Common grace is descibing God’s kindness toward sinful man to allow the enjoyment of the things he enjoys and benefits from in this world, whether he is a believer or non-believer, or theologically put: a covenant-keeper or covenant-breaker. Please check a copy of the Bible at Acts 14:14-17 and Acts 17:24-28.
Hammurabi simply picked up common grace legal concepts and codified them before Sinai.
P.S. I didn’t pick up your reaction to the tennant parable, but I was merely illustrating who the Bible says is the true arbitrator, definer, and enforcer of the concept “fairness”. For all the multiple amounts of atheists out there, “fairness” is just pulled out of the sky from difference expedient places with not even a concensus of opinion anywhere. It is a sinking sand worldview metaphysically, epistomologically, and ethically. What you asked in your tennant fairness scenario had a Rousseau/Kantian premise – which they pulled down from the arbitrary sky. I call it the gospel according to Kant. Christian Goverance is interested in a clean, non-arbitrary worldview and social theory according the the Law and gospel of Christ.
RRC
I read the scriptures you cited, and I understand the concept of common grace to be related to things like rain, food, sunlight, and the fruits of tending soil.
I’m not sure I understand common grace to apply to the “knowledge of right and wrong” or “fairness.” Essentially, I think what you are saying indicates that Hammurabi had a sense of fairness that was codified before God affirmed that sense to Moses.
Am I understanding you correctly?
John M,
Yes, common grace extends to all things which man enjoys to sustain his life on the earth for a time. This includes the ability to recognize moral and legal principles that will actually restrain the evil conduct of man effectively, and balance the scales of justice. (Men of legislative power usually find ways of either underserving or overserving those scales of just recompense). But neither the “common grace” restraints nor the Mosaic Law have the ability to change the hearts of men – that is the domain of the Spirit’s regenerating power. (Even the code of Hammurabi was replaced eventually). See Galatians 3:24 about how the Law functions only as life’s schoolmaster or guardian under the covenant of life, but not a life-giver. Actually, read Paul’s whole letter to the church of the Galatians, it will knock your socks off. That letter alone reshaped the nations of Germany, Switzerland, and Scotland in one fell swoop in the 16th century.
Common grace, more broadly speaking, is God’s forebearance of due judgement, and God’s allowance for human culture to exist and develop, despite sin. You will find this theological concept well extrapolated by Reformation theologians like John Calvin and modern reformed apologists such as Cornelius Van Til.
Pardon my typos in my last entry. I should’ve known better. And, thanks for your interest.