Pastor,
I always hear Christians talking down on the idea of a theocracy and praising the idea that America has no religious test for holding public office. Whats your take on this?
Noa Napoleon
Hawaii
Noa,
Thank you for writing. This is a question that is bandied about quite a bit and so it is good to have a go at it here.
Folks who speak the way that you have asked about have embraced a common error. It is so common we now have a whole theological school committed to the possibility of this impossibility. It is called “R2K,” or “The Escondido Theology.” Contrary to the R2K boys, we simply must realize that Theocracy is an inescapable reality. ALL governments (EVERY LAST ONE THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED OR WILL EXIST) are theocratic. All Governments descend from, reflect some, embody some or dependent upon a theology / religion. This includes ours. Our Government, speaking out of both sides of its mouth will say at various times that either all religions must be allowed in the public square — and then serves as the true God by saying how far the various gods are allowed to walk in the public square, — or alternately that no gods may walk in the public square and then serves as the true god by being the god that locks all the other gods out of the public square. So, our pluralism really isn’t pluralistic. Instead we have one God who the FEDS serve. The name of the God in our system is named “Demos,” and the religion our Government practices is Statist Democracy.
Secondly, America DOES have a religious test. Its religious test is that religious tests are disallowed. No one will be allowed to affirm loyalty to any singular God alone and if they will not abide by that they will never be elected.
So, Noa, theocracy is an inescapable concept. I think we ought to replace the religious test we have to a Christian religious test that requires affirming the God of the Bible and His Law-Word.
Allow me to put a fine point on this answer regarding religious tests and seek to give some context. First, when the founding fathers spoke of “religion” or “religious test” they assumed some ilk of Christianity. To them “no religious test” meant that public office should not be limited to Presbyterians or Lutherans or Congregationalists. To them “no religious test” was not meant to leave public office open to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and whatever. The religious test idea was pushed off because they didn’t want any one stripe of Christianity to be able to forbid other stripes of Christianity from serving in the Federal Government. They desired to leave the issue of State religions to the various colonies / states, many of whom already had their own arrangements between a particular denomination and support from an individual state.
Secondly, the original understanding of our US Constitution was that it was created by 13 nation/states for their mutual protection. The federal government was one of strictly defined delegated and enumerated powers. The prohibition against test oaths was only for that federal government. Most, if not all, of the 13 nation/states had mentions of Christ in their own constitutions and had no prohibition against oaths or creeds declared in the federal constitution regarding their own state required religious tests and oaths. The federal government would be comprised of men who had already taken religious oaths when they served in the various State governments from which they would be drawn to serve eventually in the Federal Government.
—————-
Dear Pastor,
Are you saying that false teachers and heretics, do not have a right to practice their faith and believe and do you want the government involved in that process of determining which religion gets to practice their religion and which doesn’t?
Matthew Pasalic
Maryland
Dear Matthew,
You will be glad to know that I am not saying that.
I am saying that God says just that.
It is correct that Christ-haters do not have a right to practice their Christ hating faith and beliefs. If they had the right to do that where would that right come from? From the God who demands that there shall be no other Gods before Him?
And in terms of the Government being involved in the process of determining who does and does not get to practice their religion, well, they already are. Just try to tell the US Government that you have the place to teach Christ in the Governments schools. Just try to tell the FEDS that the FEDS must make sodomite marriage illegal again.
Every law that a governing body makes is an establishment of a religion since all laws are based on a morality and all morality is dependent upon religion. Lawmaking thus is the government being involved in the process of determining who does and does not get to practice their religion.
See … Governments always are inescapably involved in that process of determination.
This is why R2K is such a torpid “theology.” It desires to keep religion out of the public square and out of Government, as if such a thing were possible. R2K theologians with their desire to consign the Christian religion to the Church guarantees that other religions will take over the public square. A singular religion in the public square is an inescapable reality.
