Is Christianity a theocracy?

[Sabertooth]

Did you know that many Protestant sects (including the Lutherans & the Puritans) persecuted the Baptists because of their preaching of a Believer's baptism (which most evangelicals embrace today).* If any of those sects would have been allowed to maintain their own "theocracies," that teaching would have been crushed.

*...instead of infant baptism.

It should be noted that even Jesus was crucified by a theocracy...!

 

[rturner76]

Many Christians do want the government to rule based on Christian principles. That's why I'm glad we have a secular government.

 

[Sabertooth]

Many Christians do want the government to rule based on Christian principles.

Some rules like murder, stealing & perjury are no-brainers, though...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It should be noted that even Jesus was crucified by a theocracy...!

The Roman Empire was a theocracy?

Many Christians do want the government to rule based on Christian principles. That's why I'm glad we have a secular government.

If Christian principles are not fit for governance, what principles are fit for governance?

 

[rturner76]

If Christian principles are not fit for governance, what principles are fit for governance?

Christian principles should always inform the way one votes. Where we run into problems in when the Christian minority wants to control the majority.

 

[Sabertooth]

The Roman Empire was a theocracy?

No, but the Sanhedrin was.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christian principles should always inform the way one votes. Where we run into problems in when the Christian minority wants to control the majority.

Why is this a problem? A minority in control of the levers of power is how politics has always operated and to this day it's how it still operates it. Democracy is just good at creating the illusion that voting matters when in reality it has little effect on who actually moves things. A minority of elites will always be in control of the majority.

No, but the Sanhedrin was.

What about Rome though? It had the ultimate say and it executed Christ in the end (for ultimately different reasons). It's an odd thing to bring up in the context of a discussion about theocracy. As if theocracy is particularly bad at killing the innocent, when throughout history that just doesn't seem true when put up against other regimes.

 

[Sabertooth]

As if theocracy is particularly bad at killing the innocent, when throughout history that just doesn't seem true when put up against other regimes.

Compared to monarchies & dictatorships, maybe, but I think that secular, constitutional law has a better track record.

"Let's face it. You can't Torqemada anything...!" --History of the World, Part 1 (1981)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Compared to monarchies & dictatorships, maybe, but I think that secular, constitutional law has a better track record.

"Let's face it. You can't Torqemada anything...!" --History of the World, Part 1 (1981)

You mean like the first French Republic?

 

[Sabertooth]

You mean like the first French Republic?

Learning curve. (Did they even have a constitutional government?)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Learning curve. (Did they even have a constitutional government?)

Learning curve? Why can't we judge liberal government by the standards of the first French Republic? Power is power and the French Republic is a good example of liberal secularism in action and how it made the 20th century a much bloodier place and expanded state power more totally than any monarchy before it.

 

[Sabertooth]

Our own constitutional government operates/operated with the doctrine that some people are/were considered property, so it is not perfect, either.

 

[Dan1988]

My question is about Christian theocracy and if we as Christians should try to force the secular world to submit to Christ by enforcing sin as crime. For example, let’s assume a same sex couple, a divorced couple and a unequally yoked couple all want to get married. Should we criminalize it to prevent it from happening or is that going beyond out duty as Christians?

The European and North American Laws and Constitutions were formed using the Bible as a foundation. This made them very prosperous, because any society where there is no justice and the rule of law is doomed to fail. This is why everybody flocked to Europe and America.

The African, Asian, South American and Pacific nations were all pagan, so corruption was rife in those places making it impossible to thrive.

The Church does need to be separate from the state, the Church should provide welfare for widows, orphans, the sick and disabled. The state should punish the evil doer, and build the infrastructure for society to function smoothly. The state should not get involved with the function of the Church, as it has no jurisdiction to do so.

If the Church tried to impose it's will over the government today, all the non believers would be outraged just as Christians would be if the Government tried to impose it's views on the Church. So it's best to keep these two institutions separate for the sake of peace and harmony.

 

[FireDragon76]

Learning curve? Why can't we judge liberal government by the standards of the first French Republic? Power is power and the French Republic is a good example of liberal secularism in action and how it made the 20th century a much bloodier place and expanded state power more totally than any monarchy before it.

The French Republic was not a good example of a liberal state. It's best not to draw up strawmen.

 

[FireDragon76]

The European and North American Laws and Constitutions were formed using the Bible as a foundation. This made them very prosperous, because any society where there is no justice and the rule of law is doomed to fail. This is why everybody flocked to Europe and America.

The African, Asian, South American and Pacific nations were all pagan, so corruption was rife in those places making it impossible to thrive.

That's a gross stereotype of "pagan" cultures.

The Chinese figured out how to make high-quality ceramics long before Europeans, they put magnets to use to build compasses for navigation of vast trade fleets, and Marco Polo noted their cities were far larger than any European cities at the time. At one time in the 19th century, Tokyo was the largest city in the world, larger than any European city. It was also cleaner than most European cities.

 

[HIM]

My question is about Christian theocracy and if we as Christians should try to force the secular world to submit to Christ by enforcing sin as crime.

Force no. As Christians we should want God's ways to be law to help ensure that His Spirit rules. But the governments and the society we live in are not ruled by His Spirit.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The French Republic was not a good example of a liberal state. It's best not to draw up strawmen.

The context of this discussion was whether or not Theocracies are particularly bad at killing people. I brought up the example of the first French Republic as an example of how Liberal governments can be particularly good at killing people. More so than some of the historical theocracies. It's hardly a strawman.

 

[FireDragon76]

The context of this discussion was whether or not Theocracies are particularly bad at killing people. I brought up the example of the first French Republic as an example of how Liberal governments can be particularly good at killing people. More so than some of the historical theocracies. It's hardly a strawman.

Historically, theocracies have generally all been brutal and not particularly good at human development.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Historically, theocracies have generally all been brutal and not particularly good at human development.

Brutal by what standards? Was it theocracies or secular states that helmed the two most deadliest wars? Was it a theocracy that instituted the levee on mass? Or the secular French Republic?

Not going to deny that theocracies have blood on their hands (as all governments and states do), but in comparison to purely secular regimes since the enlightenment they have far less blood on their hands. If we're talking about the Christian theocracies specifically.

 

[FireDragon76]

Brutal by what standards? Was it theocracies or secular states that helmed the two most deadliest wars? Was it a theocracy that instituted the levee on mass? Or the secular French Republic?

Not going to deny that theocracies have blood on their hands (as all governments and states do), but in comparison to purely secular regimes since the enlightenment they have far less blood on their hands. If we're talking about the Christian theocracies specifically.

What Christian theocracies are we talking about? The Munster rebellion was basically a Christian Taliban, and as close as I can think of as a truly theocratic, Christian state. Even Geneva or Puritan New England weren't really theocratic in the proper sense, though the Puritans were very close, but they had a fair amount of blood on their hands.

I don't consider any of the ancient or medieval states such as Rome or Byzantium to be theocracies, since they were based on Roman law and not canon laws.

We can speak more broadly of theocracies in general, not just Christian ones, and the track record of theocracies in general are subpar in terms of human development.