Yahweh for Sunshine and Baal for Rain

There are really two basic questions when it comes to questions of theocracy. The first is erroneously thought to be a genuine question — whether or not we should have a theocracy, whether there will be a god who rules over any given culture. The fact that this is even believed to be a coherent question is one of the central confusions of our age. Every society has a god, every society has a highest authority in the lives of those governed. To deny such an authority is not to destroy “theocracy” but rather to destroy society itself. The question is not whether god, but rather which god. Will it be God the Father, Demos, Allah, Mammon, or Hugo Chavez?

One of the reasons why Christians shrink from answering this first question in a clear-headed way is that they are subconsciously afraid of what the answer to the second question might be, which is, “what does your god require?” Evangelical Christians, who are pretty much stuck with the Bible, are afraid that an appeal to biblical principle in statecraft will lead inexorably to some kind of tyranny or other. This is because they have believed the slanders that nonbelievers have circulated about the God we worship, and about the Bible He has given us. They believe that this God of ours is okay when it comes to sending His Son into our hearts, but that if we let Him get too close to the real power centers, the headiness of it all would be too much for Him. He then might tell us to do apalling things we don’t want to do. In short, evangelical Christians believe that their own God is a harsh master, and that if we want really valuable civic blessings, like liberty and abundance, we must seek them from another god.

Now I agree that liberty and abundance are civic goods. There are many things about our society that I value very much, those among them. But there is only one consistent option for me to take as a Christian if I want to value such things without compromise — I must see them as proceeding from the goodness of God, and supported by what He has revealed in His Word. Let me take a simple-minded example. Provided he is plotting no criminal mayhem, should a Muslim be allowed to travel freely in our country? The answer is of course. Now, here is the real question. Why? I would answer that this is because biblical principle requires it. But if the answer comes back that “our pluralistic way of life” requires it, this is fundamentally idolatrous. It is as bad as praying to Yahweh for sunshine and to Baal for rain.