A Coming Theocracy?
Regis NicollRegis Nicoll is a Centurion of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He spent 30 years as a nuclear specialist, and is now a freelance writer who writes on current issues from a Christian perspective. His work regularly appears on BreakPoint online and SALVO magazine among other places. Regis also teaches and speaks on a variety of worldview topics, covering everything from Sharing the Gospel in a Postmodern Generation to String Theory. He currently serves as lay pastor of Hamilton Anglican Fellowship (www.hamiltonaf.org) in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- 2006 May 12
"What is the real agenda of the religious far Right? I'll tell you what it is. These nuts want to take over the federal government and suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder, rather than through proselytizing." --Stanley Kurtz, paraphrasing Leftist fears
Ever since the 2004 elections, palpable paranoia has surfaced in some segments of society. Distraught over the emergence of the Christian Right, many in the cultural Left fear the advent of an American theocracy; and with that, "a return to the death penalty for blasphemy, adultery, sodomy, and witchcraft," according to Stanley Kurtz of the National Review.
With Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and with a President who is vocal about his faith, can religious injunctions and witch burnings be far behind? All that remains to put the rising theocracy in place, they fret, is for conservative Christians to flex their new political muscle and seize the judiciary.
Mr. Kurtz points out there is a fringe group of far-Right Christians, called Dominionists, who would like nothing more than to bring back slavery and extend capital punishment to sodomists and heretics. But, as Kurtz continues, "The dystopian political program of this utterly marginal, extremist sect has absolutely no traction with anyone of significance."
No doubt, every ideology has its fanatical group that neither represents, nor is recognized by, the majority; and Christianity is no exception. In fact, contrary to the utopian dreams of Wahhabists, Zionists, and Dominionists alike, a theocratic government established by a political takeover is as foreign to Christianity as private property is to Marxism. To understand why this is so, we need to look at the role of church and state as they relate to the Creation Mandate.
The Role of the State
When God created Adam and Eve, he directed them to fill the earth and subdue it, beginning with the Garden. The twofold elements of this mandate are multiplication: creating society through the procreative act, and administration: creating culture through responsible custodianship.
Before the Fall, man's administrative role involved the care and cultivation of the Garden, including the simple task of naming the local fauna. But after the Fall, the nature of man's stewardship changed. Man's rebellion drove a wedge into the wholeness of Creation; a wedge that rapidly spread, dividing and isolating everything it touched.
One effect of this isolation was that the world became an alien place for man. What had been pleasing to the eye and good for food now included thorns and thistles. What had been a joy to cultivate was now a source of hard work and sweat. Even the joy of the reproductive process would culminate in pain. In short, what was once good, whole, and yielding became corrupted, fractured, and resistant.
Another effect was that men became alienated from each other. Within one generation, man's alienation progressed from suspicion, jealousy, and anger to fratricide. In the countless generations hence, the effects of this ever-increasing fracture have led to world wars, innumerable genocides, global epidemics, and growing poverty and hunger.
To ameliorate the consequences of this fracture, God commissioned humankind, through the Creation Mandate, to work toward restoring wholeness until he returns to make all things new. Central to that commission is the creation of a just society; one whose governance is committed the inherent value of each individual and the common good of all.
James Madison once wrote "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Thus, government is not a human invention for power and control, but a divine provision for ordering and shaping culture. Of course, that doesn't mean that government always fulfills its divine purpose. In fact, history books are full of governments that failed their high calling by succumbing to one of two errors: either that Caesar is God, or that God is Caesar.
In the first error, the State becomes a law unto itself. Without any external basis for justice and human rights, the rule of law is reduced to whatever the ruling body dictates. For such governments "The law is right," as Abraham Kuyper said, "not because its contents are in harmony with the eternal principles of right, but because it is law." Whatever rights and protections are granted today, can be overturned tomorrow with a change of mind or a change of regime. Examples include the fascist government of Nazi Germany and the communist regime of
In the second error, a religious body uses the power of the State to legislate every aspect of social life according religious law. The medieval papacy of Europe and the present-day theocracies of Muslim countries, like
Interestingly, both errors lead to religious persecution. Under the secular autocracy (Caesar is God), all allegiance must be secondary to the State. Since, by its very nature, religion flies in the face of the claim that "Caesar is God," religion is a threat that must be suppressed. Thus the appearance of the gulag, where millions of citizens have disappeared to be "re-educated."
Likewise, a theocratic system cannot tolerate loyalty to any Sovereign other than the Church-State. That is why Islamic states consistently top the lists for human rights violations. But, ironically, even in a theocratic government, the religion of the realm is undermined. For where people in a
If history has taught us anything, it is whether the Church is an arm of the State, or whether the State is an arm of the Church, the efforts to build a just society are undercut. That leads us to question the proper relationship for the Church in fulfilling its Creation Mandate.
Role of the Church
The Founding Fathers came predominately out of the Judeo-Christian tradition as either deists or Christians. Consequently, although much ink has been spilt about a "wall of separation," it was never the aim the Framers to jettison God or biblical principles from the public arena. Even Thomas Jefferson, who wrote about "building a wall of separation between church and state," authorized a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, one year later, that included federal support for building a church. It was one of numerous instances of federal assistance given to churches on Indian reservations, according to historian Robert Cord.
Thus, Jefferson and the Framers never intended that religious expression be restricted to the private sphere, or that government support of religion be considered unconstitutional. Rather, they understood that if society is to avoid "might makes right" tyranny, the standards of a just society must come from outside of society itself. They further recognized those standards to be the principles of virtue and justice revealed in Judeo-Christian tradition. The Declaration of Independence reflects their religious viewpoint in the appeal to human rights, inalienable by virtue of the Creator's endowment.
Likewise, the three-branch system of government is a direct product of biblically-informed thinking. Recognizing the reality of human nature, the Founding Fathers established the separation of powers. They knew, because of the Fall, that mankind's inherent bent toward evil required a government with checks and balances to safeguard against abuse.
In conclusion, it can be confidently said that the Framers never envisioned creating a public square that was a religion-free zone. Rather, their objection was the favoring of one religious sect over others, creating a de facto State-Church. In other words, "freedom of religion" was never intended to be "freedom from religion," as it has read into the Constitution by the courts since the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged that society is best served when Church and State are independent, yet cooperative, mutually supporting each other in promoting the common good, while respecting each other's separate spheres of authority and responsibility. In that relationship, the State legislates, protects, and executes justice; while the Church informs about the principles of a just society.
What this means for panic-ridden conspiracy theorists, is that the coming theocracy does not depend on wresting political power from an earthly king, but on the arrival of a heavenly One.
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.--
(This article first appeared on BreakPoint.org)
Regis Nicoll publishes a free weekly worldview commentary to demonstrate how Christian thinking can be applied to every sphere of life. To be placed on this free distribution list, e-mail him at: firstname.lastname@example.org