Democracy and Theocracy. In praise of Choice and Christian Freedom

There are some words in common usage that trip off the tongue without our giving a great deal of thought about their meaning. One of these words is democracy. It is a word that speaks of an aspect of society that we value but often take for granted. We may find ourselves examining the meaning of this word more closely when its opposite, authoritarianism, appears on the horizon. When authoritarian rule threatens a society, people find themselves looking to the institutions which are designed to check it, such as the Press or the independence of the legal system. In this country we value living in a society where constitutionally the will of the people is regularly consulted. The people vote in or vote out an administration according to their perceptions of its competence to manage the country.

Democracy is a relatively new idea. For most of history and in most places, other systems of government have prevailed. Democracy may have had a brief flowering in Athens during the 400s BC, but even there it was a far from perfect implementation. Women and slaves were excluded from the gatherings of free citizens that made decisions. It was also a fragile institution and there was always the threat that autocracy would reassert itself. Many of the words that describe the different systems of government are Greek words. We have mentioned two of them. There are others, oligarchy, theocracy and tyranny. We can also add Latin words like emperor and dictator. Political systems suggested by each these words have prevailed at different times in history. Of all the possible types, democracy was more often merely an idea rather than a reality. Typically, a powerful man would take over one of the organs of state, such as the army, and then declare himself to be ruler. Sometimes dictatorship was exercised benevolently. The Roman Empire had one such period under three successive emperors, Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. But, apart from this 80-year period, from 100 -180 AD, the history of Rome is marked by an almost constant series of wars, both internal and external.

Many countries today are going through political upheavals. Some seem to be moving towards authoritarian populist right-wing systems of rule. In the case of the United States we see attempts on the part of the Trump-led Republican Party to undermine the rule of law and the role of the Press. Appointing an obviously partisan judge to the highest court of the land little serves the cause of unbiased justice and oversight of the American Constitution. These efforts in the States to move towards what we would call authoritarian rule or tyranny are supported by a large group of evangelical Christians. Many conservative Christians apparently see Trump’s presidency as opening the way to another form of rule, theocracy. Donald Trump is thought to be the new King Cyrus. He it is who is the tool used by God who is coming to rule the country through his chosen representatives.

As an idea, theocracy has only been attempted in a very few places in history. In summary it is the belief that God’s law and will can be applied to a human society and it will usher in some form of perfection. The idea of theocracy could be said to undergird the indescribable brutalities of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In the West it formed part of the idealism of the early English Puritan settlers who moved to New England in the 1620s. In both examples it can be claimed that idealism was quickly translated into violence (albeit on different scales) as not everyone wanted to conform to the ideals of leaders. Contemporary theocratic ideas in America owe much to the writings of R.J. Rushdoony. In the 1960s he conceived of a system of government entirely based on Old Testament law. http://survivingchurch.org/2014/10/21/reconstructionism/ These ideas have been taken up by a powerful segment of Pentecostal/Charismatic thinkers who are organised in a network known as the New Apostolic Reformation. I have referred to this group several times on this blog, but I still find few in this country who know about the political power of this group in the States. Rusdoony and his later imitators are, as we would expect, enthusiastic about extreme sanctions against those who break sexual codes, including the mention of the death sentence for homosexuality and bestiality. One contemporary expression is the ‘Seven Mountains’ doctrine. This states that it is the duty of Christians to take charge of the seven areas of influence in society on God’s behalf. In short, every expression of culture or power should be under the control of ‘bible-believing’ Christians.

Theocracy as a practical system of government has probably not been worked out fully even by its enthusiastic supporters. But it still exists in the minds of many Trump Christian supporters as a political system which can be realistically implemented in the States. The important (and scary) thing is that they have been led by Rushdoony to believe that the Bible is an adequate basis for all decisions of government. Men of God (it will only be men) will arise to rule on behalf of God. Because they are the genuine servants of the living God, they will be faithful interpreters of his will. Whatever they command in his name will be a perfect expression of God’s law.

It is difficult to see how any modern version of theocracy will do better that its historical precedents in 17th century Massachusetts or ISIS controlled parts of Iraq and Syria. The only way that every individual can be persuaded into obeying an ‘infallible’ leader who speaks the will of God is through force and fear. We know that vast crowds will sometimes willingly follow a leader on some spiritual or political quest. But there will always be doubters or sceptics within the crowd. All our post-Enlightenment instincts want to affirm the legal and moral rights of the non-conformer. Infallibility is not a useful concept either in politics or religion and it does nothing to promote freedom of conscience. The craving for total certainties among conservative Christians as among Trump Republican supporters is a false and futile longing. The application of theocratic rule by ‘godly’ infallible leaders ends up being a path to tyranny, destruction of freedom and violence. Theocracy in short is a false dream. Because it depends on human beings to put it into practice, it will always suffer from the fallibilities to which human beings are always prey. For all its draw-backs democracy remains the best of a bad bunch in the systems of government available to us.

Trumpism and the desired move by his followers towards theocratic systems of government will only, we hope, be a temporary historical blip. But the popularity of this totalitarian thinking across the world must still be faced and challenged. Inclusivity, tolerance and the freedom to disagree with others are worthy causes. Theocracy, as it is believed in by some the States, is an enemy of freedom and a threat to the Christian faith itself. Christ invited us to freedom not the tyranny of coercion and fear.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

8 thoughts on “Democracy and Theocracy. In praise of Choice and Christian Freedom

  1. ‘Men of God (it will only be men) will arise to rule on behalf of God. Because they are the genuine servants of the living God, they will be faithful interpreters of his will. Whatever they command in his name will be a perfect expression of God’s law.’

    How do proponents of this view explain the fact that Deborah was one of the God-anointed leaders of the nation of Israel? I used to discuss this sometimes with Christians who believed that ‘leadership’ is male, and got the lame reply that Deborah was ‘under her husband’s covering’. For which, of course there is no biblical warrant. (And besides it gives me a mental picture of Deborah hiding under her husband’s cloak.) Do Rushdoony followers have a more sophisticated argument, or do they just ignore Deborah and other female leaders in the Bible?

  2. I agree with democracy being the best of a bad bunch or the least worst option of government but we shouldn’t be too triumphalist about it after all Hitler and the National Socialists got more votes than any other party.
    Perhaps the best example of a people coming together in agreement and common aim turned out to be a bit of a Biblical disaster – The Golden Calf. Its the old chestnut of “six million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” – well, yes they can.
    A lot of people would say that it was the powerful propaganda and social engineering of Goebbels that gave the Nazis their power in Weimar Germany just as today a large number of people complain that democratic Brexit was a deceitful fix by brexiteers or across the Atlantic the last Presidential election was engineered .. and so on.
    Yes, it may be the best we have got but it is very susceptible to those with cunning and ability.
    Without making too much of it I haven’t heard of Deborah being under some sort of husbandly umbrella but I have heard evangelicals saying that if men (ie Barak) won’t step up to the plate God will use women who will(ie Deborahs). I think linked to that is the belief that women are never criticised in the Bible for failing to take leadership but men are.

  3. Choice inertia.

    We all do it. I do it. We stick with a decision to follow a particular leader long after that decision proves demonstrably wrong.

    Sure we have the internet and 24-7 news. But we also have selective news feeds. We follow people with the same ideas as us, the same political or religious views. Often we are not listening to the other side of the debate.

    “Theocratic” ideas are popular for their simplicity. We love simple choices, black or white, good or bad, right or wrong.

    We delegate thinking. We delegate decision-making. Let him decide for me so I don’t have to think too much about his ethics or morality.

    History is littered with such choices and their consequences.

    To counter our own weaknesses in this area, we need to have our eyes open.

    To be heard by others we will probably find shouting polarised views to be completely ineffective.

    A community of listeners is powerful.

    The new age of transparency will be a ally in the challenges ahead.

    False leaders will continue to rise and crash just as they have always done, but I believe if we work together we can expose, influence, and shorten the cycle of power abuse.

    1. Agreed. It’s very important not to restrict our news intake to ‘feeds’ which automatically select items we’re likely to agree or sympathise with. I get a newspaper (The Times) which has commentators from different parts of the political spectrum, and make a point of reading at least some of those I disagree with. I generally watch at least 2 TV news bulletins a day too, on different channels.

      Our freedom and well-being depend on the population as a whole staying well-informed; unfortunately this takes time and effort. Not everyone has either the time or the motivation to do it.

  4. So agree Janet. The annoying thing about the internet is that it wants to know all your likes and dislikes and tries to feed you what it thinks you want. Frustrates me no end.

Comments are closed.