Is Christianity a theocracy?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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 state. Even Geneva or Puritan New England weren't really theocratic in the proper sense, 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.

When I consider the prominent theocratic states of Europe the ones that come to mind are the Papal States, Knights of Malta, the Teutonic and Livonian orders and the various Bishoprics of the HRE. These were theocratic entities in that they were states run by religious rulers rather than purely secular ones.

The Munster rebellion is interesting but in comparison to those ones it proves to be an exception rather than a rule. It lasted only a year in comparison tot he longer and more established theocracies. It's radical character was rejected by most nearly everyone and it was brutally and rightfully suppressed.

 

[Dan1988]

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.

I don't know much about ancient technology, as most of the recorded history has been destroyed so we don't have any reliable evidence for the time prior to the 20th century. It's almost impossible to find information about the 19th century, as there were world wide fires and mud floods so most records were destroyed by them. Most technological books were deliberately burned, by people who had a vested interest in hiding that information.

I wasn't only referring to technology in my comment, I was talking about the big picture where those countries which used the Bible as a basis for writing their laws and constitution were far more desirable to live and flourish in then the pagan countries where the law of the jungle prevailed.

If we look at the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and other pagan nations, we see lawlessness, corruption and misery. This is why they risk their lives to illegally enter western countries, where we all flourish and enjoy the rule of law.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know much about ancient technology, as most of the recorded history has been destroyed so we don't have any reliable evidence for the time prior to the 20th century. It's almost impossible to find information about the 19th century, as there were world wide fires and mud floods so most records were destroyed by them. Most technological books were deliberately burned, by people who had a vested interest in hiding that information.

We have archeological and textual evidence in China going back thousands of years, and can make reasonable conclusions about their culture. It's not like the Chinese themselves were not interested in their history.

I wasn't only referring to technology in my comment, I was talking about the big picture where those countries which used the Bible as a basis for writing their laws and constitution were far more desirable to live and flourish in then the pagan countries where the law of the jungle prevailed.

This is a gross generalization that betrays prejudice and bigotry.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

If we look at the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and other pagan nations, we see lawlessness, corruption and misery. This is why they risk their lives to illegally enter western countries, where we all flourish and enjoy the rule of law.

Do a little reading about the Golden Age of Islam which produced philosophers like Avicenna, mathematicians and polymaths like Omar Khayyam, translated Greek, Indian and Persian writings that otherwise would have been lost to time, including works of Aristotle and Plato.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do a little reading about the Golden Age of Islam which produced philosophers like Avicenna, mathematicians and polymaths like Omar Khayyam, translated Greek, Indian and Persian writings that otherwise would have been lost to time, including works of Aristotle and Plato.

That's why we have words in English like "algebra" or why so many names of stars come from Arabic (Betelgeuse, Algol, Altair, etc.).

The concept of zero comes from Indian philosophers, the Greco-Romans didn't have this idea. But it's fundamental to modern math. All the Greco-Romans had in the way of math was geometry and counting on your fingers, in comparison: it was more concrete. The Indian imagination, on the other hand, was capable of thinking in terms of vast quantities or the negation of all quantity.

 

[Dan1988]

Do a little reading about the Golden Age of Islam which produced philosophers like Avicenna, mathematicians and polymaths like Omar Khayyam, translated Greek, Indian and Persian writings that otherwise would have been lost to time, including works of Aristotle and Plato.

I did study history at school and from memory, the vast majority of great minds were white European Jews. They hold most of the Nobel prizes for scientific discoveries in space technology, mathematics, medicine, nuclear technology, and many other disciplines. Even in our time, the Jews rule the world when it comes to innovation and technology.
We can't deny the fact that Jews are vastly superior to the gentiles, when it comes to intelligence. I guess that makes the memory of the other intellectuals fade away. Nobody remembers who came second in past Olympic games events.

 

[Dan1988]

We have archeological and textual evidence in China going back thousands of years, and can make reasonable conclusions about their culture. It's not like the Chinese themselves were not interested in their history.



This is a gross generalization that betrays prejudice and bigotry.

It may sound like a generalization, but the fact s speak for themselves. All you need to do is look up how many thousands of Muslims and Africans have drowned on the high seas and suffocated in the back of trucks, in an attempt to escape the Islamic countries and the law of the jungle.

I just don't get how anyone can justify these barbaric regimes, the fact that people are willing to die while escaping those hell holes should prove to you that the Christian West is far more desirable than Islamic, Buddhist or Hindu countries.

 

[Stephen3141]

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?

It's better to answer the more general question (than to focus on what secular people consider "marriage" to be).

"church" simply means local gathering of the People of God. This is how you get "churches" in the New Testament language. There is one People of God, but there are many "churches".

As Paul says, each gathering/church must be governed by God's law. But Paul is careful, as to trying to impose Christian morality on a surrounding pagan culture. And so Paul projects, very consciously, a double standard. Besides this 2-standards approach, we see Paul supporting the Roman laws that do correlate with Christian morality. In this, we see Paul supporting that the pagan Roman government has the right to execute judgment on criminals. But note that in the law of Moses, "there shall be one rule for you [the People of God] and for the stranger who lives among you". The theocracy that the law of Moses created, is not the situation of the church in the Roman Empire.

Paul was VERY explicit that Christians should try to not associate with pagans, as much as that is possible. God's People is to have a separate culture, and not embrace surrounding pagan cultures. (This is a part of biblical Christianity that the younger American generations may not like.)

The approach of the first century Church, is to try to live in peace in a surrounding pagan culture.

In the Roman Empire, there was not much representation of citizens, as a whole, in the legislative process. And so the situation of the early Church, is not the situation that Christians in America are in. We have representation in the government, and have a much greater chance to effect Christian morality to be legislated in secular America.

It is a mistake to think that America is a Christian country, or a Christian theocracy. It is probably a mistake to make it your life's goal to make America into a Christian theocracy.

 

[Stephen3141]

It does not help sinners to merely make sins illegal by worldly governmental laws. We all need during this life a real change of heart (a "new heart"), to be 'born anew', redeemed, and that's the only thing that can actually help sinners.

So, for example, when the United States enacted Prohibition (* see footnote at end) to end alcohol sales, in the 1920s -- and drunkenness is listed in the Bible as sin -- that did not make the people less sinful, or not for long.

Soon enough, people that wanted to get drunk were able to get alcohol and get drunk anyway, but more -- organized criminals began to use alcohol sales as a way to get rich, and criminal activity increased.

The law lead to more evil, not less.

The only way to help humanity is through telling people the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
----------------

* -- The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution–which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquors–ushered in a period in American history known as Prohibition. Prohibition was ratified by the states on January 16, 1919 and officially went into effect on January 17, 1920, with the passage of the Volstead Act. Despite the new legislation, Prohibition was difficult to enforce. The increase of the illegal production and sale of liquor (known as “bootlegging”), the proliferation of speakeasies (illegal drinking spots) and the accompanying rise in gang violence and other crimes led to waning support for Prohibition by the end of the 1920s. In early 1933, Congress adopted a resolution proposing a 21st Amendment to the Constitution that would repeal the 18th. The 21st Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933, ending Prohibition.
Prohibition

In one sense, that example is too easy.

What if someone wants to have female child sex slaves? Should christians seek to make THAT illegal, in the secular culture in which they live?

 

[Halbhh]

In one sense, that example is too easy.

What if someone wants to have female child sex slaves? Should christians seek to make THAT illegal, in the secular culture in which they live?

So, in secular law, the old idea that is most commonly followed is that actions that affect other people are regulated by law.

I.e. -- secular government can't usefully make it illegal to commit suicide, for example. If a law against committing suicide was passed, what would actually happen is that hearing of the law would make some rebel that were considering it, and go ahead and kill themselves, who otherwise would not have done so.

Contrast to secular law the only Law that can help in that way (about personal morality): the divine Law from God is meant to convict us of sin, so that we might be humbled, repent, and turn to Christ.

It's not helpful for a secular government to try to make itself a replacement for Christ/God and be the Law, capital L, to regulate personal morals.

Why not?

Here's why: That's God's prerogative/authority...

Not the prerogative of Senator X or President Y, the people including those we wished hadn't won their election.... Those human leaders that make laws that many people consider just political stuff...their own stuff, not better than mere politics.

I think you may already agree on this though...

 

[HIM]

It's better to answer the more general question (than to focus on what secular people consider "marriage" to be).

"church" simply means local gathering of the People of God. This is how you get "churches" in the New Testament language. There is one People of God, but there are many "churches".

The issue here is there is to be only one faith through Christ. That is not the case.

As Paul says, each gathering/church must be governed by God's law. But Paul is careful, as to trying to impose Christian morality on a surrounding pagan culture. And so Paul projects, very consciously, a double standard. Besides this 2-standards approach, we see Paul supporting the Roman laws that do correlate with Christian morality. In this, we see Paul supporting that the pagan Roman government has the right to execute judgment on criminals. But note that in the law of Moses, "there shall be one rule for you [the People of God] and for the stranger who lives among you". The theocracy that the law of Moses created, is not the situation of the church in the Roman Empire.

Paul was VERY explicit that Christians should try to not associate with pagans, as much as that is possible. God's People is to have a separate culture, and not embrace surrounding pagan cultures. (This is a part of biblical Christianity that the younger American generations may not like.)

Many "churches" professing Christ have become and have been pagan from the start. Compromising through a sinful heart has muddy the Water. A little leaven has leavened the whole.

The approach of the first century Church, is to try to live in peace in a surrounding pagan culture.

In the Roman Empire, there was not much representation of citizens, as a whole, in the legislative process. And so the situation of the early Church, is not the situation that Christians in America are in. We have representation in the government, and have a much greater chance to effect Christian morality to be legislated in secular America.

It is a mistake to think that America is a Christian country, or a Christian theocracy. It is probably a mistake to make it your life's goal to make America into a Christian theocracy.

We are to stand firm in what God would want here to the point of death. That does not mean we go looking for trouble. But if it is not I but Christ, trouble will find us and we are to accept the outcome through the faith that God avails to us through Christ. Praying without ceasing, always asking the way. Never presumptuous, always and everything done in love. Knowing when to kick the dust off our heals and when to stand firm in the Spirit through Christ meeting people where they are at. Not to be there in their despair. But to bring them out in the fullness of Christ to enter the joy of the LORD.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus Christ if He was a king, Jesus replied: Yes, you are now saying that. Jesus Christ is the King for all Christians. From this point of view, Christians have a theocracy.

Politically, theocracy was temporary and short-lived in Old Testament and New Testament times. Perhaps God Himself does not want people to do His will under duress. In any case, now Christians in all countries of the world are a minority and do not have such power to impose their laws on society.

On the other hand, we remember that those nations that filled the cup of God's patience were destroyed (this was accompanied by the suffering and death of most of the inhabitants): ancient Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, Assyria and others. Therefore, Christians cannot feel safe if pagans and bad Christians sin a lot.