What is the Definition of Theocracy? By Tom Head Updated October 18, 2016. A theocracy is a government operated under divine rule, or the pretense of divine rule. "Theo" is Greek for God, and "cracy" translates to government. In practice, the term refers to a government operated by religious authorities who claim unlimited power in the name of God or supernatural forces. Many government leaders – including some in the U.S. – invoke God, claim to be inspired by God, or claim to obey the will of God. This does not make a government a theocracy, at least in practice and by itself. A government is a theocracy when its lawmakers actually believe that leaders are governed by the will of God and laws are written and enforced that are predicated on this belief. Examples of Modern Theocratic Governments Iran and Saudi Arabia are often cited as modern examples of theocratic governments. In practice, North Korea also resembles a theocracy because of the supernatural powers that have been attributed to Kim Jong-il and the comparable deference he receives from other government officials and the military. Hundreds of thousands of indoctrination centers operate on devotion to Jong-il's will and legacy.

Theocratic movements exist in virtually every country on earth, but true contemporary theocracies are primarily found in the Muslim world, particularly in Islamic states governed by sacred Sharia law. The Holy See in Vatican City is also technically a theocratic government. A sovereign state and home to nearly 1,000 citizens, the Holy See is governed by the Catholic Church and represented by the pope and its bishop. All government positions and offices are filled by clergy. Characteristics of Theocratic Government Although mortal men hold positions of power in theocratic governments, the laws and rules are considered to be set by God or another deity, and these men first serve their deity, not the people. As with the Holy See, leaders are typically clergy or that faith’s version of clergy, and they often hold their positions for life. The succession of rulers may occur by inheritance or may be passed from one dictator to another of his own choosing, but new leaders are never appointed by popular vote. Laws and the legal systems are faith-based, typically formed literally on the basis of religious texts. The ultimate power or ruler is God or the country's or state's recognized deity. Religious rule dictates social norms, such as marriage, as well as law and punishment.

Governmental structure is typically that of a dictatorship or monarchy. This leaves less opportunity for corruption, but it also means that the people cannot vote on issues and do not have a voice. There is no freedom of religion and defying one’s faith – specifically the theocracy’s faith – often results in death. At the very least the infidel would be banished or persecuted. Common Misspellings: theocrasy Theocracy! -- "Liberty Under God" Beginning in Missouri's 7th Congressional District -- KEVIN CRAIG for Congress R.J. Rushdoony, " The Meaning of Theocracy " It is an undeniable fact of American history that this nation was designed to be a nation " under God ." "Under God" is the literal meaning of the word "theocracy." I am willing to admit that I advocate "Theocracy." My goal is to turn America into a Christian Theocracy. This frightens most Americans, and understandably so. When most Americans think of "theocracy" they envision a nation dominated by corrupt priests or armed ayatollahs.

In the post 9-11 era, "Taliban" might be the word most frequently associated with the word "theocracy." There is a world of difference between Osama bin Laden's version of a Muslim theocracy and the prophet Micah's version of a Christian Theocracy, an ideal which had a great influence in creating America. I believe America's Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian Theocracy , and I believe they would have supported my agenda if they could see our world today. A Definition Surprising in its Simplicity "Theocracy" comes from two Greek words, Theos, God, and kratein, to rule. A Theocracy is where God rules, or governs. Nothing here about priests; nothing here about the Taliban; nothing about a policeman standing on every corner. A society where priests rule is better called an "ecclesiocracy" or " hierocracy ." A society where a king rules is called a "monarchy," and the Bible says this form of government is a rejection of Theocracy ( 1 Samuel 8 ).

A society where lots of little kings rule -- but are called "princes," "presidents," "ministers," "commissars," "representatives," "senators," "CEO's," or anything else -- is still a violation of the spirit of 1 Samuel 8 , and is thus not a "Theocracy." Many societies throughout history have been called "theocracies." Some societies in our day are called "theocracies." America was once called a Theocracy. But our standard is not any other country, past or present. My goal is not to make America like any other nation , but to follow the blueprints given to us by our Creator. In America's Declaration of Independence, those blueprints are called " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ." What did America's Founding Fathers mean when they spoke of " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ?" They were talking about the Bible. John Locke (1632-1704) was a Christian philosopher who had a great influence in America. He said: [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . .

be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135. (quoting Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, 1.iii, ï¿½ 9 ) William Blackstone (1723-1780) was cited more frequently than Locke by America's Founding Fathers. In 1810 Thomas Jefferson wryly commented that American lawyers used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran. Blackstone described the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God in a chapter in his Commentaries entitled, " Of the Nature of Laws in General ." An excerpt is found here . Among the highlights: Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will.

This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time - ed.] with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity [happiness]. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. [ more ] 3. ï¿½Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my God commanded meï¿½.

Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?ï¿½ (Deuteronomy 4:5-8) 4. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37. 5. John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 4 vols. (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1874) vol. 1, p. 181. 6. William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffeyï¿½s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.

h/t Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835: ï¿½They [the 17th-century Christian Colonials] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8,3 demonstrating the continuing veracity of Yahwehï¿½s moral law and its accompanying blessings, per Deuteronomy 28:1-14]. ï¿½Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650.

The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and ï¿½ they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ ï¿½ copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.ï¿½ï¿½4 John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 1874: ï¿½In June of 1639 the leading men of New Haven held a convention in a barn, and formally adopted the Bible as the constitution of the State. Everything was strictly conformed to the religious standard. The government was called the House of Wisdomï¿½. None but church members were admitted to the rights of citizenship.ï¿½5 William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffeyï¿½s Sixth Eclectic Reader, 1879: ï¿½Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuchï¿½.

God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally soï¿½.ï¿½6 From: #GBA see also USA Today: Every "solemn prayer" is a request for God to take charge. Every prayer is a request for Theocracy . Theocracy: A society without priests and kings, all people reconciled to God and to each other, living in harmony and prosperity, blessed by God, governed by " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ." "Theocracy" vs. "Providence" In a sense, God rules everywhere . Communist China can be said to be a part of "God's Government" or Theocracy, and the eye of faith can see God's judgments in China. But the normal sense of the word "Theocracy" is a political state which officially acknowledges the authority of God and allows God to call the shots, politically speaking. We distinguish between "Theocracy" as a social state and " providence " as God's government over nations which do not have a Theocratic form of " government ." The Secular State versus Theocracy and State Atheism Government, Religion, and Secularism »The Secular State versus Theocracy and State Atheism The Secular State vs.

Theocracy and State Atheism Types of Government in Relation to Religion: Theocracy, State Atheism, and the Secular State We favor a policy of Secularism in governance, that is, a nation with no official religion and government separate from organized religion not based on it. Again, societies where organized religion (Church) and government (State) are one in the same are bad for both religion and government. In favoring Secularism, we oppose State Atheism by which government and organized atheism are one and the same! There are important and vital reasons for why we favor a Secular State: 1) We do not want a theocracy! In a religious state (theocracy), government and organized religion are one. As we have seen in the history of Christian Europe when Church and State were one, it was impossible to criticize the government without criticizing the Church and vice versa. Thereby to go against the government meant you had to fight against the Church by extension your religion. To go against the Church meant you went against the government – both would come down on you! This turned into a corrupt and oppressive mess.

Eventually, this turned many people away from religion so they could fight their corrupt governments or turned them away from their Church/ religion entirely. Surely even you religious persons do not want a society like that? In countries where church and state were one, often you ended up with Priests, Bishops, and other religious authorities/personal getting paid by the government for their work. Do you want the priests and other religious figures and authorities on government payrolls? Want the politicians controlling your Church or vice versa? That is a recipe for corruption between politicians and religious figures who end up sharing the same bed, so to speak (this is what historically would happen). And what official religion would you adopt? And what about the Americans who do not believe in such a religion? What about those who do not share that particular version of your faith? This is a recipe for persecution, oppression, and death of our American brothers and sisters of different faiths or irreligious! 2) We do not want State Atheism! In an atheist state, government and organized atheism are one – atheism is promoted by government as policy.

State Atheism is a Godless society without freedom of religion and any spirituality or religious expression is forbidden by law (along with belief in any “higher power” or God) – all personal faiths are forbidden often at the point of persecution, oppression, and death. Surely even you atheistic persons do not want a society like that? This is largely incompatible with our Constitution that allows freedom of religion and largely incompatible with our society where the ultra-majority believe in a “higher power” or “God”. We have the historic examples of the Soviet Union, Albania, China, and briefly during the French Revolution, where death and persecution was common for expressing religious faith. The government forced people to renounce their religion and adopt atheism (failure to do so was prison or death). State Atheism would be a recipe for disaster unleashing great harm and death to our religious and spiritual American brothers and sisters. 3) A Secular State is the best! A secular nation is not a Godless society and there is the liberty to believe in any religion or faith one likes (freedom of religion). There also exists the liberty to not believe in any religion.

Religious expression is allowed as well as belief in any higher power or “God” or not to believe if one chooses. Secularism is different in each country based on their cultural traditions accumulated over their existence. The Secular State mainly acts neutral towards religions, irreligion, and atheism, although a nation may have cultural traditions that derive in part or in whole from religion which can be acknowledged (such as in the United States – the Christmas holiday, etc.). One can have any religious faith or no religious faith, however, there are two important conditions: a) Your religion, beliefs, or lack of - must not harm your fellow Americans b) Your religion, beliefs, or lack of - must not be out to destroy the nation In the industrialized world, Secularism is also the reason religion has flourished in the United States in comparison to Western Europe where centuries of Theocracy have poisoned both governments and discredited religious institutions (this is what happens when politicians share a bed with clergy - corruption). Religion in the United States did not have the turbulence of continuously collapsing governments to which the “Church” was directly attached to. Religion detached from government was allowed to survive and develop independently on its own regardless of changes in government.

When Americans got mad at the government they did not have to fight their Church or religion at the same time. Secondly when Americans got made at their Church or religious institution they did not have to fight their government! Secularism is Not Dirty Word The word “Secularism” has been given a bad name and reputation by the media these past years. Mainly because the media has chosen to focus only on select fanatics - normally the militant atheists promoting their little organizations whom love to use the word “Secularism” to push their personal agendas (personal fame and fortune). But secularism and atheism are two very different things. Nevertheless, such people end up on the news making irrational comments which the media uses to generalize entire groups of people and paint Secularism in a very negative light. Such types of atheists do the cause for Secularism no good! In fact, they are a liability doing great damage to the cause of secularism! They do more harm than good. They seek to draw attention to themselves and in doing so make those of us promoting secularism look like anti-religious God-hating lunatics. The cause for Secularism is important and they are ruining it.

Secularism is neutral and does not actively seek to destroy religions or oppress those who believe in God (or any higher power). There are actually rational arguments for Secularism completely unrelated to any form of atheism. We have made some of those arguments above. Secularism Does Not Mean the Destruction or Oppression of Christianity (or any Religion) In today’s society the problem has become deeper than simply a separation of church and state and simple secularism. The problem is the mainstream media! Sure there are Christian fanatics out there, just as there are atheists fanatics but they certainly do NOT define or represent all members as the media would have you believe! Overall the fanatics from both sides are a very small minority, but as we all know, a small hateful minority can cause great damage to the larger more temperate or accepting majority. These types of religious fanatics and atheist radicals seem to really just be out to create trouble and problems where there otherwise would be none. Such people just want attention and the mainstream media knows how to use them as pawns or scapegoats for creating broad generalizations of entire groups of Americans and generating social conflict (so the two political parties can pick us apart).

The mainstream media loves focusing on these small hateful fringe groups because: 1) It helps to divide the American people against each other which is good for the political establishment 2) News and entertainment have become one and the same. If you are a fanatic Christian, (say a Westboro Baptist Church “Christian”), who thinks it is alright to cheer the death of American soldiers and disrupt their funerals because the United States allows gays to exist within it, then you are just a low-life loser who is simply out to cause trouble! If you are a fanatic atheist, who walks passed the White House and becomes offended that there is a Christmas tree with Christmas ornaments and then files a lawsuit to have it removed, then you are just a low-life loser who is simply out to cause trouble! These are the people the mainstream media uses and caters to! Secularism vs Political Correctness In this past decade there has been a tilt in targeting anything related to Christianity (at least the mainstream media makes it appear that way) or Christians themselves (cultural or otherwise) which is not what secularism is about! Keeping both separate does not mean one needs to attack and destroy the other.

Believe it or not, this had nothing to do with atheists whom even amongst those who are active are a small minority within a minority; thereby impossible to threaten or destroy Christianity simply due to lack of numbers (in addition, the organized groups have never won a major court case in recent times). Rather this is all the work of the mainstream media on behalf of the political establishment in the hopes of triggering some kind of “religious” warfare or social conflict between Americans both Christian and the irreligious. Similar to how we all witnessed the media try to create a race war between Americans after the Trayvon Martin shooting with them going so far as to alter police evidence (this time they got caught)![ 1 ] The mainstream media acts to divide the population by any means necessary for both the political parties to pick apart and the personal entertainment of the elitist’s class. The political establishment helped them mainly through this ridiculous concept of “political correctness” which itself distorts reality and shapes false perceptions! Do not confuse “political correctness” with Secularism (or atheism) otherwise you will play into the mainstream media hands! The mainstream media is to blame for this conflict - they created it and are the guilty party. Not the irreligious nor the non-Christian!

There have been ridiculous issues this past decade on ridiculous things that serve no purpose except to divide the American people for the ruling establishment. For example: 1) Such things as avoiding saying “Merry Christmas” in public, in stores, and on television, brought about in the name of political correctness with the mainstream media adding fuel on the fire. What kind of person takes offense to being told “Merry Christmas” by someone even if it is a mistake (conversely, the same with Happy Holidays)! You may be surprised how many non-Christians celebrate the Christmas holiday – it is a cultural holiday for many. According to Pew, 80% of non-Christians (which includes Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) celebrate Christmas holiday as a cultural tradition and federal holiday. 2) Our government actually wasted its time telling members of Congress they cannot say “Merry Christmas” in their mailings and are making sure they do not (this was reversed in 2013). Then there is the White House “Holiday tree” which replaced the “Christmas tree”.

This is not the work of atheists who want religion out of everything, if it was, why does the White House still celebrate Hanukkah with a menorah and celebrate Ramadan? Seems quite selective. If atheists aren’t doing this, then who is? The answer: see below. In a secular state, there is nothing wrong with Americans elected into public office wishing their constituents a “Merry Christmas”, “Happy Hanukkah”, “Happy Ramadan”, etc., as just because you are elected to government does not mean you are forced to give up your religion or religious expression when you take office. Furthermore, Christmas Day is already a national holiday legally designated by the federal government since 1870 – nothing wrong with celebrating cultural holiday. 3) When a football player goes on one knee to thank God in prayer on the sideline and the media makes this the “controversial” story of the year, there is something is wrong here. There is really no reason for the media to even focus on someone’s personal faith with the exception that they can use this to create controversy and better divide society. In each of the instances mentioned above, who is to blame? The Muslims? The Jews? The Atheists? No.

This is solely the mainstream media and the political establishment. Ever notice how the media selectively reports on some stories more than other stories no matter how equally irrelevant they are? This means they have an agenda – normally to aid and enhance the divide and conquer strategy of the political establishment (democrats and republicans). This is the work of the politicians and especially the media whom acts to divide us. The atheists are not needed, excepting for the fact that a small fringe minority within a minority can be used by the ruling establishment as either pawns or scapegoats for either side based on party lines. If you want to stop this, the establishment politicians and the mainstream media need to be brought down (not the puppets or pawns they hide behind)! Government, Religion, and Cultural Tradition Of course, while religion and cultural tradition can be two separate things, both are also connected in many respects. Religion normally has some influence on the culture of a community by which traditions are born from. While secularism holds separation of Church (organized religion) and State (government) and neutrality towards religion and irreligion, it does not mean censoring cultural traditions to which often religion has at least partially influenced.

Christmas holiday is an excellent example of this where it is secular for those who want it to be and religious for those who want it to be – both are together in a cultural tradition and national holiday. The concept of God is not a religion and one does not need religion to believe in God. National surveys indicate more than 90% of Americans believe in God (define as you will), some universal spirit, and/or a “higher power” (define as you will). Obviously over 90% of Americans do not attend Church, Mosque, or Synagogue nor are they outwardly “religious” in any sense. But belief in something grander is very much part of culture and is often detached from organized religion. This kind of cultural deism has been part of our nation for a long time.

The word “God” or “Creator” is in many of our national documents such as the Declaration of Independence (1776) and in our historical and cultural national songs such as the Star Spangle Banner (1814), My Country Tis of Thee (1831), The Battle Hymn of the Republic (1862), American the Beautiful (1895), and God Bless America (1918). Including the words “In God We Trust” (our national motto, since 1956) and “Under God” (Pledge of Allegiance, since 1954) continuing a long tradition of a generic or symbolic “God”, or “higher power”. This is a result of cultural tradition rather than established religion (theocracy). About half the States at the time of the Founding had references in their Constitutions to “God” or “Creator”. Even the Declaration of Independence, which is not a religious document, makes reference to a “Creator” (Natures God) that endowed us with rights. Neither of them are a result of a government based on an established organized religion.

There are references to “God” or Creator in many of our historical documents and there is no need to start removing or censoring elements of our history which is mostly historic cultural tradition rather than set organized religious laws. While changing the National Motto or Pledge of Allegiance is certainly flexible (it has been done before in the past). We will not start censoring, erasing, and omitting words from our history especially those historical and beautiful patriotic songs – that we, here, are all going to sing at some point either at rally’s, gatherings, or marches (if you do not like it, then do not join our movement, organization, or political party). We will not start tearing down our nation’s cultural traditions, nor our historic monuments, or censoring our history – that is not what Secularism is about! Secularism and Morals/Virtues Where do morals and virtues sit within a secular state? They obviously do not disappear. Although we are a secular nation, this does not mean a secular government should be devoid of morality and virtues, every civilization has a set of moral laws or codes by which society strives to lives by and moderate itself.

These types of laws are necessary if we are to call ourselves a civilization and to prevent our decent into barbarism and lawlessness! There are civic morals and civic virtues that must be adhered to! Where do these laws come from? They come from a variety of sources in combination such as culture (including religion and history), philosophy, nature, and political institutions! It is important to know right from wrong if we are to have a just society. Whether the anti-government types like it or not, such laws are necessary for a just society based on liberty and the rule of law. Of course, not all moral laws are set in stone. Since society, culture, and civilization evolves, moral laws may also evolve with them. Even though these laws may evolve over time, they must never be discarded - after all nobody wants rapists, child molesters, and thief’s running around freely believing they are good with no fear of punishment. Do you like this page?

Some Dare Call It Theocracy | Providence Foundation Some Dare Call It Theocracy By Eric Holmberg and Stephen McDowell [i] Providential Perspective Series - 10 “The agenda of the religious right is a theocracy in the United States of America.” Frank Schaeffer on the Rachel Maddow Show, 9/20/11 This ominous-sounding charge was made by the son of the late, great Francis Schaeffer as he discussed the Republican Party and political figures like Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. The irony here is that Bachmann credits watching the elder Schaeffer’s How Shall We Then Live, the seminal analysis of western culture from a Christian-worldview perspective that was produced by Frank, as having sparked her initial interest in the nexus of faith and culture. But now, according to Schaeffer junior, by allowing Biblical truths to inform their world-and life-views, and then permitting those beliefs to guide their public policies, “theocrats” on the Right like Bachmann are seeking to impose a form of “Christian Sharia law” on the country.

Their end-game: anAmerica blessedly free of “immigration, black people, gays, and women having a right to choose,” where “whites are in the majority.” The ravings of a backslider and traitor to both Jesus and his father’s legacy are easily dismissed. (Really, Frank? Herman Cain wants to get rid of black people? And Marco Rubio wants to stop immigration?) But the greater truth Christians need to understand is that the further our nation sinks into the abyss of humanism and statism, the more frequently the bogeyman of “theocracy” is going to be invoked whenever Christians dare to express their values in the public square of politics, government and law. As the Dr. Frankensteins to this imaginary theocratic monster—roaming our land in search of blacks and homosexuals to devour—we need to be up to speed on the presuppositions that drive the witch-hunt. The culture-war is about to get very ugly. Definitions: First, what does the word “theocracy” mean?

Dictionary.com is broadly representative in defining it as a form of “government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.” As Christians we understand that there is only one, true God. So a more precise definition would replace “God or a deity” with Yahweh or “the God of the Bible.” Historical Theocracies The only true, God-ordained theocracy that has ever existed was Israel during the time of the Prophets and Judges, the Urim and Thummim, [ii] and the manifest, Shekinah presence of God. [iii] These Prophets and Judges were Israel’s “ecclesiastical authorities” who revealed the will of God infallibly when operating under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. To insure that His general will was clear to all the people, God Himself wrote down foundational moral and social principles upon which He designed the world to function.

There was also the profound benefit of the supernatural presence of, and direct interventions by, Yahweh, the “lights and perfections” of the Urim and Thummim, and other miraculous guidance at this very unique time in human history. Israel’s citizens—the people God chose to bring redemption to the rest of the world by modeling the mysteries of the Gospel, [iv] and through whom He brought the scriptures — were sheep being led by a very present Shepherd, who was manifest in part through literally inspired (from in-Spirited) leaders. - The First Prayer in Congress, September 1774 Sadly, because of Israel’s persistent disobedience, the glory of God eventually departed. But for a remnant of faithful prophets—who went largely unheeded and often persecuted—Israel was left a shell of its former self, simply going through the motions of being God’s people, but in reality no longer obeying His commands. This theocratic structure was reborn and transformed with the advent of Christ. At the moment of Jesus’ sacrificial death, the veil of the Templewas rent from top to bottom.

[v] This symbolized the end of the Old Testament order and the birth of a “new and better covenant.” [vi] Beginning with Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on all the redeemed—Jew and Gentile alike. [vii] Thus the New Covenant/Church age began in earnest. Moses’ desire that “all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” [viii] was wonderfully fulfilled. And Jesus’ last words before stepping out of our time-space continuum and into the Throne Room [ix] of the higher, parallel reality we call heaven became—to borrow a useful analogy from Star Trek—the Christian’s Prime Directive: - Jesus commissioned us to disciple nations by teaching all He commanded. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. [x] Teaching nations to observe all the things that Christ has commanded. That does sound rather theocratic doesn’t it?

Is Schaeffer right about Bachmann and other faithful Christians, with the most notable Other being Christ Himself? Does Jesus want His servants to establish theocracies—as defined above—throughout the earth? That Was then; This Is Now While every aspect of this new covenant is better than the old—even as the glory of the latter house surpasses the former [xi] —to the less renewed mind [xii] it doesn’t always seem that way. Who wouldn’t love to have seen the parting of the Red Sea or the glory cloud settle atop Mount Sinai; to watch, like Indiana Jones, the Shekinah fill the temple and settle over the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant? Most Christians today, though they have experienced the invisible, internal miracle of a changed, reborn heart, still secretly fantasize about seeing an incontrovertible miracle that would constitute the ultimate, inarguable “proof” of God’s existence and the truth of the Gospel. Surely that would be a better way, wouldn’t it? Well, go ask Thomas (when he wasn’t exactly ten feet tall).

[xiii] The higher life to which we have now been called—walking by faith and living a self-governed life under the authority of God’s word and the leading of the Holy Spirit—is, from our Lord’s perspective, the better way. And this is not just the calling of some priestly or prophetic class of elites, but one all Christ-followers are called to enjoy and embrace. There is an additional factor to keep in mind here. Perfect, God-breathed revelation through prophets ceased as the canon of scripture was completed around the time the Templewas destroyed. [xiv] God no longer spoke infallibly through a human agent. No longer were there any books waiting to be added to the Bible—no “new” New Testaments holding for a prophet’s pen. [xv] This means that there is no longer any prophet or judge who can authoritatively reveal the word or the will of God. That is unless he or she is “rightly dividing the [already revealed] word of truth” contained in the scriptures. [xvi] What does all of this mean with regard to the issue of theocracy? Just this: Pentecost brought with it a profound democratization of culture.

With the advent of the New Covenant—and the accompanying emergence of God’s Kingdom—every man and every woman became a priest and a king before God. There is no longer an ecclesiastical elite that can consult the prophets or the Urim and Thummim. We can no longer follow a “cloud by day or a pillar of fire by night.” [xvii] Therefore, a theocratic state like the one established by God through Moses is neither possible nor, more importantly, something that God would now want us to reconstruct. The eventual worldwide rule of Christ, as depicted in St. John’s Revelation, can only come through heartfelt, joyful, worldwide acclamation. There is not, nor could there ever be, another way. We should also note that the New Testament epoch was and is a wonderfully inclusive one. At its institution, when the Holy Spirit began to draw from “every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,” [xviii] the church very rapidly became a multi-national, multi-ethnic affair. Apostolic leaders were forced to convene in Jerusalem around 50 A.D.

to figure out what was expected from the small flood of Gentile converts entering the now-Christianized synagogues, in regard to the Jewish culture and laws from which the church sprang. [xix] It “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to [them]” [xx] that many of the distinctives of the theocratic Jewish state should not be binding on the Gentiles. More slowly (and more painfully) they came to understand that many were no longer binding on Jews as well. A massive sea-change was afoot with regard to what the Kingdom of God should look like in relation to this world. Clearly the Gospel had the power to change a person’s heart. Additionally, this inward change would inevitably result in the transformation of the person’s thinking, speech and outward behavior. The early Church also quickly learned that the transformation of a person can result in the conversion of an entire household. [xxi] And if a family can be transformed, why not a community?

Not that everyone in the community will be converted, [xxii] but if enough are, because the “greater one” lives inside them, [xxiii] might they also be able to impact the spiritual climate of that community to the extent that an approximate Christian righteousness and justice becomes the popular norm? And if this can happen to a community, why not a city, or a nation…or the entire world? Certainly there seemed to be verses in the Bible suggesting such a possibility. [xxiv] Moreover, Jesus, Himself, hinted at it with the aforementioned Prime Directive. [xxv] But what would a righteous city or a nation that had been taught “all the things” He commanded look like? What system of law and government would it employ? Clearly it would have to seek to follow and honor God. But how exactly would that work in the absence of divinely inspired judges and prophets? [the booklet continues . . . ] To learn the answers to these questions and more, order a copy of Some Dare Call It Theocracy . - Better yet, become a Member of the Providence Foundation and get immediate access to this Perspective and receive booklets like this on a regular basis.

- In addition, Members receive all past Providential Perspectives booklets, scores of articles and historic writings, free access to the BWU course, Watchmen on the Walls, and a 30% discount on our books. - National Social Science Association The Political Theory of Theocracy Andrew J. Waskey DaltonState College What is theocracy? How many of them have there been? How many of them are there now? Could new ones soon arise? At a time when Hindu “fundamentalists” supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are seeking to change the world’s most populous democracy into a Hindu theocracy, in what categories should this possible change be discussed? Have there been other Hindu theocracies or, is this something new in 3500 years of Hinduism? At a time when the United States is at war with Islamic extremists who are seeking to turn the Middle East at the least, and the whole world if possible into an Islamic theocracy, what is the character of such regimes? Is democracy possible in Islamic countries or are they irrevocably committed to some theocratic form of government?

At a time when the United States has a great number of Christians growing in outrage at the drive to secularize the country and to drive them from the public square what is the theocratic impulse that motivates them? 1 Do American apocalyptic cults such as those at Jonestown and at Waco pose a serious threat? Are they merely aberrations or do they represent some kind of fundamental human drive? Anthony Arthur in his book on the militant theocracy of a group of Anabaptists at Munster in the 1500s raised the question about the Munster Affair 2 --whether it was part of a norm, or whether it was an aberration from the norm that was so extreme as to be more in the nature of freak events. It would be easy to dismiss all theocracies as systems sought by fanatics and freaks, and therefore not normal. This is easy, but, very wrong headed. The fact is that theocracies are universal and should be given systematic study. Such is the claim of this paper. Definition of Theocracy The usual definition for a theocracy is “rule by God or some god(s).” Usually it refers to some form of divine rule through some human agent or lieutenant.

The word theocracy is a compound of theos (god) and kratia (rule). 3 Is this compound word from the Greek sufficient to cover all the forms of theocracy, or is it, like many terms that grow in application in different circumstances, originally meant to apply to only one form and now seeks to cover a multitude of forms? Is it sufficient or is a larger vocabulary needed to cover its many manifestations? A simple examination of the subject shows that theocratic governments have existed in numerous forms for about as long as government has existed. They have an astounding variety, but the vocabulary for describing them is wanting. Among the varieties of theocracy are those of ancient times such as those that existed among the Hebrews, and other ancient kingdoms such as those of the Pharaohs, Assyrians, Babylonians and the Cretans. In the Dark Ages, and at other times, bishops ruled for decades or centuries in the absence of any civil government. The cathedral at Metz was the center of a theocracy of Loraine. Other examples can be found. In the Middle Ages feudal systems were dominated by kings, making claims about divine right. Today there is a monastic theocracy protected by the Greek government on Mount Athos.

4 This type of theocracy is a religio-legal phenomenon similar to those of others other places. In Asia from ancient times until 1924 the Emperor of China ruled with the mandate of heaven. In Tibet and elsewhere, especially in Southeast Asia there have been and still exist Buddhist kingdoms, or Buddhist theocracies to be more specific. Is Lamaism a special form of theocracy. Would it mean the same if describing the Jesuit theocracies among the Indians in Paraguay? There were and are still theocratic tribes in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. How do these relate to theocracy of the Incas, the Japanese, and more? How do these differ from the theocracies of the priests in Quebec, Calvin’s Geneva, William Penn’s colony, various caliphates, and sultanates, Joseph Smith’s Utah, and many more too numerous to name here? It is not too much to say that most governments have been theocratic in some fashion or other. This is a claim that can be made whether including or excluding the quasi-religious Communist governments of the Twentieth Century, especially where cults of personality resemble theocratic cults.

Why is it then that theocratic governments in their rich variety have been so little studied by political scientists? Where is the vocabulary to describe this rich variety? Two Questions for Research This paper seeks to address two questions: Why have theocracies been so little studied? And, what, at least in outline, are the many forms that theocracies take? The question is important if a sound political vocabulary of theocracy is to be developed which can be used by social scientists. The first question will be answered in two ways: by showing the limitations of Aristotle’s famous six forms of government. To this should be added the influence of secularism, which in denying the validity of religion, ignores its importance. The second question will be answered by describing briefly a number of theocracies and by then attempting a preliminary development of a political theory of theocracy. Aristotle and Why Theocracies Are So Little Studied For at least three generations, and probably for a lot longer, American political scientists, and probably a lot of others elsewhere, have been teaching beginning college students Aristotle’s typology of the “Six Forms of Government.” The typology is a very familiar matter to political scientists, and usually a delight for beginning students. See Table 1.

In addition it frequently happens that students, especially if there is some emphasis on empirical methods, are informed that Aristotle’s students gathered together the constitutions of 150 governments in his day—an excellent comparative empirical method to be sure. Aristotle then organized his typology of the forms of government as they are presented today. In classes in political theory it is also common to add more to the understanding of the typology by presenting the student’s with a copy of the Constitution of Athens. This was one of the empirical studies used by Aristotle that was recovered from the sands of Egypt in the late 19th Century. Moreover, reading the relevant sections of the Politics is also a part of undergraduate exposure to what seems to be a complete typology of the forms of government around the world. But, is it complete? Has Aristotle said everything, or has, as John Calvin was fond of saying, “he’s said something, but has he said everything?” The facts are, as shall soon be demonstrated, that Aristotle has not said everything on this subject. In fact the thesis of this paper is that political scientists have not observed this point and as a consequence have ignored theocracy as a form of government in all of its rich varieties.

The inadequacy of Aristotle’s typology was demonstrated in ancient times by Joseph ben Matthias whose Roman name was Flavius Josephus. 5 Josephus was born in A. D. 37 the same year that Gaius (Caligula) became Emperor. Josephus was born into family of priests of the first rank 6 , and was through his mother related to the royal Hasmonean family. He was very precocious as a child and apparently an excellent student of Jewish studies. In his late teens he decided to test the qualities of the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. He joined the latter and remained a Pharisee for the rest of his life. At age twenty-six he visited Rome on a mission to assist some Jews. Along the way the suffered ship wreck, but was eventually befriended by both a Jewish actor (Aliturus) and by Poppaea the Emperor Nero’s wife. His visit to Rome convinced him that resistance to Rome would be a fatal policy. Upon his return to the Holy Land he advocated a policy of cooperation with Rome because a policy of revolt would be fatal.

He was unable to prevent the revolt of the Jews that ended with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Diaspora of the Jews. His book the Wars of the Jews is an important source for the war. He was himself a general in the Jewish army. He was in command when the Romans besieged and took the fortress of Jotapata after six weeks. After his surrender Josephus was spared by the Romans. Josephus apparently predicted that Vespasian would become emperor. When this actually happened it gained considerable favor toward him by the Romans. He was granted Roman citizenship, a pension, and other benefits. The remainder of his life was spent in writing. His writings were numerous and are of two major types: his histories 7 and his controversial literature 8 . His polemical work Against Apion is where the term “theocracy” was coined. 9 Josephus was of necessity loyal to his Roman patrons, but he was also a loyal Jew. His works can be seen as efforts to counter the anti-Semitism of the day.

10 Josephus says: Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads:--Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator [i.e., Moses] had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression may be termed a “Theocracy,” by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all the good things enjoyed either in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of all that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest difficulties. 11 It is clear from this passage that Josephus has found Aristotle’s typology of the six forms of government to be inadequate. This Aristotelian deficiency can be called the external omission. It is external, because although Aristotle considered the constitutions of one hundred and fifty city-states (polis) and probably more, he did not survey even the beginning of the vast number of the kingdoms of this world.

If there is an external omission in Aristotle, is there an internal omission? The answer is yes. The categories that Aristotle uses are numeric, and evaluative. He divides forms of rule numerically: rule by one, a few, and many. But, it is the division of the forms of government into good and bad forms that reveals the theocratic principle that is inherent in Aristotle’s typology. What is Aristotle’s standard for judging that the various forms are good and bad? The common interpretation in modern times relates them to the amount of freedom to be found in each form. Since tyranny, oligarchy, and the Aristotelian view of democracy 12 are opposed to freedom then this explains their opposition. The modern interpretation is a secular prejudice. It assumes or argues that the evolution of man is marching to the fulfillment of complete human freedom. It is very doubtful that Aristotle had any such notion. In fact, it is well known that Aristotle was not a democrat in any sense. His views supported at the very least an aristocratic form of republican government. If freedom is not Aristotle’s standard for judging regimes as good or bad, then what is his category? It is the religious rectitude of the sacrifices that must be performed in the Greek state.

In a word, regimes are good or bad insofar as they are religiously correct. 13 Is this a theocratic principle? How does one define a theocratic principle? 14 Josephus defines it in terms of the actions of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. More accurately Josephus accurately described the biblical definition, that is, the direct rule of God over His people. Examples of this idea can be found at a number of places in the Bible. For example, in Judges 8:23 Gideon is offered heredity kingship. He categorically refuses and declares, “’I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.’” 15 But what about all the other governments that justify themselves with religious categories that would be viewed from a biblical vantage as idolatrous, but others would call theocratic? How are they to be defined? How should they be compared or categorized? How should this subject be studied? An historical survey would be interesting; however, the scope of the subject is universal. As a result a survey tends to jump from age to age and continent to continent. This becomes a bit awkward to follow.

A more practical way to organize this study is to classify theocracies into two major categories: “personal” 16 theocracies and theonomies. “Personal theocracies” are those in which a divine agent directly or indirectly rules through human beings. A theonomy is that form of theocracy in which there is rule by sacred law. What will be attempted here is a combination of an historical survey combined with an attempt to categorize theocracies into two major categories. The categories are the personal and the legal. Monotheistic Personal Theocracies In most theocracies human agents claim to get their authority to rule directly from God or the gods. The government is legitimate as long as it faithfully enforces the divine will. Historically these divine lieutenants have been either viewed as divine beings, as semi-divine kings, or priests and as other religious functionaries, including a sacred text (cf., Sikhism). However, the latter form of theocracy—rule where a sacred text dominates will be put into the theonomic category. Generally speaking any political system (including tribes) which claims to be governed by God or the god(s) can be called theocratic.

This means that the divine rules both the invisible private soul, and, the visible political order as well. In theocratic states it is hard, if not impossible, to distinguish the civil and religious parts of the government. The divine lieutenants 17 in ancient Israel included patriarchs, priests, judges, kings, and prophets. These religious functionaries were not viewed as individuals who ruled in the general name of the divine, but as human organs through whom God ruled, perhaps in the way a legislature may be described as the organ that expresses the will of the people. "Charismatic theocracy" was the first of the three major forms theocracy took in ancient Israel. At Mount Sinai the Hebrews entered into a covenant with their God. Loyalty to the terms of the covenant was expected from the people who had been chosen to be a "holy nation." When the Hebrews accepted the covenant they became a theocratic amphictyony united in reverence and service. The "charismatic theocracy" was decentralized, lacking a permanent political and military organization. In times of trouble the Spirit of the Lord would come upon an individual, who through the divine gift of charisma, was able to perform military feats of deliverance.

These charismatic leaders were called "judges." 18 Moses exemplifies the prophetic and charismatic type of leader who functioned as an instrument of divine rule. His successor, Joshua, was not a priest either, but a charismatic military leader. This type of religious functionary was to last until the Prophet Samuel instituted the monarchy at the end of the Period of the Judges. The two hundred year Period of the Judges described in the Books of Joshua and Judges reports leaders who were temporarily endowed with the Spirit of God and given power to lead. The judges were a mixed lot, who were often reluctant to lead (Gideon), never judged any cases (Sampson), included at least one woman (Deborah) and in general had little in common. The period of "royal theocracy" saw the monarchy established. The First Book of Samuel records the demands of the people for a king to meet the military threat posed by the Philistines. 19 Samuel anointed Saul to be king by divine command despite his opposition to the popular mood. The Deuteronomic Historian saw the monarchy as a rejection of God's kingship rather than Samuel's leadership.

The kings of ancient Israel, especially in the Southern Kingdom, were considered to be the anointed servants of God, earthly representatives of His theocratic authority. The kings of Israel were viewed as divine agents, royal sons by divine adoption. Even their thrones were viewed as the Throne of the Lord. They held permanent office, but kept the theocratic functions of leadership in war and judgment in peace from the pre-monarchy period. They were to be pious students of the commandments of the Lord (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). To King David was given a sacred promise of an eternal theocracy through his dynasty. The Monarchical Period also saw faithless disobedience of divine policies by the kings and the people, so the prophets spoke truth to power 20 as religio-ethical agents of the theocratic ideal. Discouraged with kings who failed to live up to the theocratic ideals the prophets began to prophesy of a coming ideal king who would be perfectly obedient to the Covenant. This anointed king (Messiah) would institute the Kingdom of God. The Babylonian Exile began after the destruction of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel. Exile should have ended their existence as a people.

Instead aspirations for a return to the land and for a renewal of the theocracy developed under prophetic preaching. The conquest of the Babylonian Empire by the Persians ended the Exile. Under the leadership of Nehemiah and Ezra returnees rebuilt Jerusalem and the Temple. Hopes arose in the Post-Exilic Period that the theocratic monarchy would be restored. Instead a hierocracy (rule by priests) developed. The period of "hierocratic theocracy" saw two major developments. First in the synagogues a spiritual theonomy developed centered on the Torah or divinely revealed scriptures. The religious law was to control all aspects of community life. The period also saw the development of eschatological theocratic hopes. "Eschatology theocracy" hopes for a future time when the earth will be ruled directly by God without any mediation whatsoever. "Eschatological theocracy" has two forms --"messianic" and "apocalyptic." The latter is often spiritual in character, but can have immediate political applications. "Apocalyptic theocrats" often see an active role for human efforts to help in bringing in the reign of God.

All the apocalyptic literature of the Inter-testament Period and New Testament times, usually filled with violent scenes, was theocratic. Where patient waiting for the coming of the kingdom wears thin, chiliastic efforts to bring in the kingdom by human efforts can develop. 21 In New Testament times groups, like the Zealots, believed that the way for the apocalyptic theocracy might be prepared by violence. The Zealot attempt to purge the Holy Land started a fatal war with Rome. It ended the original history of the Israelite/Jewish theocracy and evoked the literary work of Josephus. The last battle in this attempt to create an apocalyptic theocracy was at Masada. 22 "Messianic theocrats" are spiritual rather than political. They wait for the advent of the Kingdom of God, which will be the rule of God on earth as it is in heaven. This form of eschatological theocracy is common to most Christians, as well as to some other groups. Judaism of the Post-Exilic period had set out to be a pure theocracy. When the monarchy was not restored, the priests, left to rule alone, eventually stagnated.

The corruption of the priests around New Testament times led to separatism by many groups such as the Essenes at Qumran. It also invoked new directions for theocratic hopes. In the New Testament itself Jesus preached a spiritual theocracy to begin with the coming of the Kingdom of God. The advent of the New Age when God will rule directly is a core belief of the New Testament. Early Christian theocratic impulses were spiritual and not applied to politics. In the early medieval period Christian theocratic societies, shaping every aspect of life, arose in both the Latin West and Byzantine East. These were a new blend of theocratic ideas. Both societies were viewed as the body of Christ on earth with the temporal power in charge of "earthly" things and the spiritual power in charge of the soul. In the Latin West the Holy Roman Empire was theocratic in nature because it was held that God ruled through both the Holy Roman Emperor and also through the Pope. In the Byzantine East theocratic beliefs were similar to those in the Roman West. However, the Byzantine Emperors came to unite both spiritual and temporal powers in a theocratic system called Caesaropapism.

After Constantinople fell to the Muslim Ottoman Turks in 1453, the Orthodox Christian rulers of Russia developed the theocratic claim that they were the new Caesars (Czars), ruling from the Third Rome. Medieval and Renaissance theocratic examples included the Papal States where religious interests dominated civil authority, the time of Fr. Girolamo Savonarola in Florence, pastor Ulrich Zwingli's Christian congregation of the elect, and early life among in the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum) 23 . The City of Muenster Affair 24 involved a radical Anabaptist attempt to repristinate the theocracy of ancient Israel. Their chiliastic 25 theocracy was destroyed by military action. The City of Geneva during John Calvin's ministry is generally viewed as a theonomic theocracy. Calvin held no civil offices, but the influence of his preaching led to the enactment of many laws organizing Geneva into a place where the Gospel ruled all areas of life. 26 This was done through the lay officers (elders) of the church who were also the holders of civil offices.

The first key to understanding Calvin's theonomic theocracy lies in the religio-political revolution that occurred in Geneva about six months prior to his arrival. After expelling the Roman Catholic bishop, the leaders of the Reform movement gathered with all the people, including the city officials, on the banks of the Rhone River. There in a public ceremony they swore to "live according to the Gospel forever." Calvin's task in Geneva was to enable the Genevans, who often held Erastian 27 views (cf., Josephism 28 and other similar terms), to keep their promise. Late in life Calvin believed his efforts to reform all of Genevan life in accordance with the Bible were only partially successful. In contrast, the Scottish Reformer, John Knox, declared that Calvin had indeed made Geneva into a theocracy "...a city of [divine] light set upon a hill." The second key to Calvinist theocratic ideas lies in the strong emphasis put upon the whole Bible, including the Old Testament by the Reformed Tradition. All spheres of life should be theonomically ruled is the basic principle.

The terms "nomocracy," or, "bibliocracy" to describe the rule of the Word of God through the scriptures has been suggested for the theonomy found in Geneva. The Calvinistic Pilgrims and Puritans in New England also established a theonomic theocracy, a "Holy Commonwealth" of the Bible ruled by the saints. The Puritan clergy did not hold civil offices. Through their preaching they sought to organize every aspect of live according to their understanding of the teachings of the Bible. Millennial theocratic impulses, similar to those motivating the Puritans, shaped Quakers. Eventually a "Holy Experiment," a society governed according to God's will, was conducted in Pennsylvania and other places. In Europe kings developed royal theocratic claims to legitimize their rule. For instance, King James I claimed he was a divine monarch with his authority resting upon divine right. Robert Filmer, author of Patriarchia, justified divine right by arguing that kings ruled by the grace of God. This meant that the kings had been given a grant of divine authority to rule on behalf of God and were answerable only to God.

In the Ancient World royal theocracies based on divine beings existed among the Pharaohs, the Babylonians, Assyrians, the Hellenistic kingdoms, and elsewhere. Stories about goddesses giving birth to kings, or nursing them in infancy, thereby creating a living human-deity were well known. Claiming to be semi-divine enabled royalty to act as intermediaries between men and the gods. Royal theocracies have been found in Africa, American Indian, and Asia. African Royal Theocracies Ashanti royal theocracy is similar to many other African tribal kingship. The king is the ruler, but what he can do is hedged by the limitations imposed by the religious leader(s). Royal theocracies may be the most common form of theocracy. American Indian Theocracies In the Americas hundreds of tribes and a handful of great city civilizations existed during pre-Columbian times. Many of these had theocratic governments. The Indian tribes of North America had democratic practices, councils of elders, and theocratic chiefdoms. Among the Mississippians a loose theocracy of the sun prevailed until about the time of Hernando Desoto’s exploration.

This theocratic system of chiefdoms claiming ties to the sun god or goddess covered much of present day Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi. Theocracy held sway over much of present-day Southeastern United States and the areas along the rivers of Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. Theocracy among the Pueblos Indians is guaranteed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Their form of government has the ruling civil leader and other officers elected by the religious leaders. Other royal theocracies include the Incas in pre-Columbian Peru, who ruled as living sun god. Among the Maya the rulers were a living link to the gods with their blood sacrifices. Asian Theocracies Across the Pacific the Emperors of Japan, professing to be divine descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu, ruled. In 1945 the Japanese Emperor's theocratic claims were suppressed. But, since 1992 the claim is being restored through ritual ceremonies. In China the establishment of a Republic ended the Divine Mandate of the Emperor. The early period of Chinese history from before 700 B. C. and certainly before 1500 B. C.

was a period in which warriors kings were believed to be divine representatives of the divine. While in India Brahmanism has exercised theocratic influences, there is a modern tradition in India that claims Hinduism’s broad tolerance has been non-theocratic. The problem with this claim is that Hinduism with its 350 million gods is very tolerant of a rich variety of religious practices as long as the Vedas are accepted as scripture in some way and the caste system is supported. 29 This is a case that requires further study. Buddhist theocracies have existed in a number of places. The most famous of which is the Lamaism of Tibet. Before the Chinese Communist take over in 1950 Tibet traditionally had a theocratic government. The Buddhism practiced in Tibet is called Lamaism. Monks (lamas) belonging to several sects accounted for twenty percent or more of the population. The Dali (High) Lama was the supreme political and spiritual ruler, while the Pachen Lama was the chief spiritual authority. Each Grand Lama was chosen after the death of his predecessor as a new reincarnation of Buddha and viewed as a divine ruler living on earth. Other Buddhist kingdoms have also been theocratic.

The Kingdoms of Nepal follows an ancient form of Hinduism in its theocracy, while neighboring Bhutan is a Buddhism theocracy. Theonomic Theocracies Theonomic theocracies are systems in which divine law is “seen as” the expression of divine will. A theonomy has a legal system that to one degree or another seeks to institute the law of God or some “divine” being or principle as the basis of law. The biblical vision of the Puritans and of large number of Christians in America today is of this kind of theocracy. It is not a matter of that false dichotomy of separation of church and state. Probably most Christians would not care to have clerics serving in government posts other than those of chaplain. However, they do seek to frame laws on a biblical basis. Claims that religion is the source of all terrible wars, and savage conflict are spurious. The notion that these kinds of wars are worse than those motivated by world impulses such as greed, power, revenge, land, racial hate and ideological opposition will have to be proven and not merely asserted as is usually done. Such a proof is very unlikely to succeed. Theonomy in Islam Theocracy also occurs in Islam in a verdant form.

It is believed by Muslims that the will of Allah as revealed in the Qur’an (Koran) is the seat of authority. From its beginning Islam was a religious community with no distinction between faith and civil power. "Islam din wa dawla" ("Islam is religion and state,") is still a basic belief. However, the fact that this saying points to both state and religion led to the development of two different traditions--one definitely theocratic and another which would develop a secular tradition of separation of mosque and state. Theonomic theocracy in Islam lies in Islamic law-- Shari'ah. The legal order created by the Shari'ah developed from the Koran, and the traditions associated with Mohammed. Therefore, the rule of Shari'ah is rule by a legal code that implements a divine revelation. The practical implication is that Shari'ah in Moslem countries directs every aspect of life and makes them theonomic theocracies. In Saudi Arabia the Koran is the constitution, and the Shari'ah is the only legal code ultimately matters. There is a major difference between the egalitarian theocratic practice in Sunni Moslem countries and the hierarchical theocratic practice in Shi'ite Moslem countries.

In Sunni countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the religious teachers are not a formal clergy, and all the faithful have a right to question and interpret the Koran as members of the theocratic community. In the Islamic Republic of Iran the Shi'ite clergy have great influence. They are more hierarchical with mullahs, ayatollahs, and an Imam, who is accepted as the infallible authoritative interpreter of the Koran. The Shi'ite clergy serve in the Iranian government and have a virtual veto over it. Many modern Islamic fundamentalist (also called Islamist revivalist) movements seek to recreate the theocratic society of Islam as it was in the days of Mohammed. There is a rich history of Christian eschatological movements in the West. Those pursuing the Millennium 30 have included Seekers, Quakers, Fifth Monarchists, and others. All were seeking a millennial age when Christ will rule on earth. Some theocracies, like the early Mormons 31 in Salt Lake City, Utah, have been successful and some, like the People's Temple of Jonestown, Guyana (1977), have not. The spread of powerful theocratic ideas have inspired theocratic movements to develop in many areas of the world.

Among non-Western theocratic movements have been the Taiping Rebellion (1858) 32 Another theocratic movement was led by the Mahdi in Khartoum, who killed Charles "Chinese" Gordon (1885), 33 and most recently, Islamic fundamentalism. 34 Israel, the original home of monotheistic theocracy, began in 1947 as a secular state, but there are forces pressing for a restoration of the Temple in Israel and a return to the theocratic ideal. Jerusalem without theocratic pressures is difficult to imagine. Theocracy in Modern Times From the beginning of recorded history until the Enlightenment theocratic ideas shaped most governments. Theocracies declined in number in the Twentieth Century, but the secularist Cold War struggle renewed theocratic impulses. The threat of nuclear destruction combined with other forces to inspire movements seeking new forms of theocratic government. Hopes for a political system that will be truly just are universal. Sometimes these hopes are expressed in utopian literature depicting perfect societies created by human efforts that are free from all evils. A few (e.g., Thomas More, Utopia) have been religious utopias.

Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid's Tale described an anti-utopian future in America. It depicts a theocratic dystopia run by religious extremists. However, it is likely that there are many secularists who envision a coming secular government that will establish the rational humanist version of the millennial kingdom. Hitler used many apocalyptic images in advancing National Socialism. The Soviet Communists also secularized many apocalyptic images and theocratic ideas. There are also cults such as Scientology, Heaven’s Gate, and the Aum Shinrikyo (Aum Supreme Truth) sect in Japan. The Aum Shinrikyo sect engaged in chemical terrorism (March 1995) and the Heaven’s Gate sect committed mass suicide in 1997. While apocalyptic these groups were not necessarily theocratic, but may have developed theocratic doctrines if they had survived long enough. Early in the Twentieth Century royal theocracies and hierocracies seem to be about to disappear. Decades later theocracies especially the theonomic type, seem to be making a revival. With a long and rich history theocracies are likely to continue to inspire supporters.

In addition it is certainly possible that even theocracies of the personal type could make a comeback. For example, Chinese rule in Tibet has a checkered history. If Chinese Communism changes to a democratic society, it is possible that the Dalai Lama will return to Tibet and restore it to a traditional theocracy. An Attempt At Creating Categories The chart below is an attempt to categorize the theocracies discussed above. See Table 2. Conclusion So why are theocracies a neglected area of study? First, Aristotle’s presentation of the forms of government masks the issue. In addition secular prejudices, which are really another form of Hellenistic thinking, add to the blindness. Finally, failure to organize study of these various theocratic forms into an organized theory has kept political scientists from understanding in a clear way the scope and character of theocracies. It can easily be seen from just the few theocratic examples presented that there is a rich variety of theocratic forms that have existed throughout history.

In a age in which theocracy is in a struggle with secular humanism, an age in which wars are occurring over the theocratic system, it is warranted that political scientists engage in developing a systematic description of all the world’s theocracies in order to make sense of these systems and their contemporary politics. So this paper can be viewed as a call to rethink the subject of theocracies in order to develop a systematic theory of the subject. This is not a problem unique to Political Science. Other social scientists have struggled with the same problem. For example, David L. Webster in an article on theocracy concluded that the discipline of Anthropology needs to either improve it understanding of theocratic organizations or abandon the concept altogether. 35 The same could be said for Political Science. Table 1

Question: A 'theocracy' is government by whom?
Answer: THE CHURCH