Democracy versus Theocracy

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. 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.

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Northumberland. 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 the psychological aspects of leadership and follower-ship in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.


This blog-post, by retired Church of England priest Stephen Parsons, is an important and relevant commentary on a couple of issues facing us in today’s world. The first of these is the agenda of US President Donald Trump, whose isolationist politics on behalf of the US Government is openly backed by a conservative Evangelical group of neo-Pentecostal and Baptist ministers whose promotion of the ‘Prosperity Gospel’ is aligned with Trump’s desire to control – by economic and other sanctions – the terms on which the United States is prepared to deal with the rest of the world.

Despite his own less than perfect behaviour with regard to sexual propriety, Mr Trump is largely supported by a con/evo group that is concerned, for instance, to legally suppress  the country’s openness to the inclusion of LGBT+ people, immigrants, and others who threaten the status quo of a primitive sola-Scriptura ‘Good Ole Boy’ philosophy that has retained such elements as sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and racism, in order to protect its own puritanical ethos from what it sees as ‘demonic’ and ‘alien’ influences.

As Fr. Stephen Parsons here suggests, to assume the proprietory ‘rights’ of a religious group is to overlook the right of other religious groups – as well as those of a secular society in which all religions need to co-exist – without fear or favour if we are to follow the Gospel precepts that we are to live at peace one with another.

All religions are prone to their own individual possibilities for the exercise of fanatical control of the human rights of others, but if they are to the neglect of the ‘common good’ there is a question of whether – or not – they are following the precepts of ‘true religion’ under the universal Creator God. As Christians, we are not exempt from the Scriptural injunction to “render to no man evil for evil” but to seek the common good. Jesus’ own interaction with foreigners to his own Jewish tradition has him sometimes commending them for their attention to matters of common courtesy in their treatment of others.

The Christian Crusades, for instance, involved an attempt to demolish adherents of the Muslim Faith. Today, fanatically militant Muslims are warring against Christians – but not only Christians – also against those who do not measure up to the strict puritanical standards they discern from their own understanding of the Muslim Scriptures.

In their own way, ‘Sola Scriptura’ Christians are hell-bent on marginalising even other Christians on what they perceive to be the incorrect following of their own insular and unchallengeable understanding of what the Scriptures have to say about the exigencies of the Law.  Jesus, however, in saying that he had not come to destroy the Law, also said that HE had come to fulfil its requirements – on our behalf – because he knew that it was beyond our capacity. We cannot save ourselves by our own efforts at righteousness – this is why Christ came into the world, to BE our justifier and the sole agency of our Redemption and Salvation. “Christ came into the world to save sinners” – every one of us!

Jesus knew there would be other religious communities in a multi-peopled world. What he did say was that Christians (his disciples) would be clearly recognised and distinguished by their love – rather than their judgement of other people!

About kiwianglo

Retired Anglican priest, living in Christchurch, New Zealand. Ardent supporter of LGBT Community, and blogger on 'Thinking Anglicans UK' site. Theology: liberal, Anglo-Catholic & traditional. regarding each person as a unique expression of Christ, and therefore lovable.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.