Episode 125 – Theocracy

A theocracy is a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. That word gets thrown around some in political discourse today, often as a scare tactic, but I want to talk about it for a few minutes.

 

Let’s go back in time for a minute, shall we?

 

My students love to tell me that when the first European settlers got to America, they came for religious freedom. This is a compelling narrative that we have been telling American school children for generations.

 

It is only partly true.

 

The first European settlers came here for a variety of reasons. Some were prisoners being carted off to the new world to get them out of Europe. I mean, Georgia (LITERALLY named after King George) wasn’t technically a penal colony, but it was one big work release program. Some came as indentured servants to escape poverty and prison sentences. They generally found more of that when they got here. And, yes, some came for religious reasons.

 

The first colonies, Plymouth, Jamestown, the ones we think of, often came for religious reasons – but it wasn’t religious freedom. There was no freedom in these colonies. They were strict, religious theocracies. The church WAS the government, and you had to obey the church as you would obey the law. The church ran every part of society. It was the exact opposite of religious freedom. There was one religion, and everybody followed all of its rules or there were consequences.

 

So where does this religious freedom narrative come from?

 

Some of that answer rests in the story we like to tell about ourselves vs. who we actually are.

 

America has, since Europeans got here, spun a yarn that Americans are the new chosen people and this is the new chosen land. And the story goes like this: there were these people who were religiously persecuted, so they wandered the earth for a while, just looking for a place where they could peacefully practice their religion, and they came upon this place that was rich in natural resources, which God had set aside for them, and they settled in the land and became a shining city on the hill.

 

That is the story of the Old Testament, and if you ask any red-blooded American, the story of the Pilgrims.

 

It is woven into our national identity that people came here looking for “religious freedom.” They wanted to practice their religion free from persecution and just mind their own business, right? And to a certain extent, that’s true. Europeans WERE looking to set up places where they could practice their own religion. But the “freedom’ part of that is a pretty big misnomer. Once they got here, it was anything but free. They set up religious communities that were just as, if not even more so, oppressive than the ones they left.

 

So, America has had a tenuous relationship with religious freedom from the beginning. And what we say and what we do has not always necessarily matched up.

 

The Founding Fathers were no better on the subject of religion. If you were to point to them to figure out whether this is a “religious” nation or a “secular” nation, you’d be able to find proof for just about any point you want to make. Because guess what? They didn’t all agree! Some of the Founding Fathers were very religious and wanted to see that as part of the government and some were not.

 

So, let’s look at the evidence, shall we?

 

In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson claims we are imbued with certain inalienable rights by our Creator. That seems like a pretty big move to include at least spirituality in discussions of government. Because, at least on the surface, it seems to ground our rights in something divine. But when we actually move onto the law, a different picture emerges.

 

It may surprise you to know, if you don’t already, that God is literally NOWHERE in the Constitution. From the beginning our laws have been 100% secular. There is NO mention of anything holy in our founding legal documents. I am careful to say founding LEGAL documents, because the Declaration is not a legal document – it’s a manifesto at best, an angry break-up letter at worst. But it doesn’t carry any legal weight. It doesn’t craft policy. It just lists what we’re mad about.

 

The Constitution, however, is a different beast. It is, as the name describes, what makes up our nation. And God is conspicuously absent. And there’s a reason for that.

 

The colonists were trying to separate themselves from Great Britain, and European styles of government in general. And one of the things that defined monarchies was “the divine right of kings.”

 

The divine right of kings basically said you can’t question the king because he is God’s chosen vessel. God has blessed him and elected him to be in charge, so his word is sacrosanct. It is a sin to cross your king. And you KNOW he is supposed to be king because he IS king. You don’t get to be king unless God wills it. So anybody who is king is supposed to be and you daren’t question them.

 

Americans did NOT like that.

 

So, they specifically left God out of the law.

 

The problem with letting God into the law, is that things become absolute. There’s no room for question. No room for dissent. And the colonists were not about that. They were specifically trying to get AWAY from divine right of kings. So, they specifically left God OUT of the Constitution. The laws were designed to be secular so we wouldn’t fall into the pratfalls of European monarchy.

 

So, we end up with some things like the Northwest Ordinance, that seems to imply religion is necessary for good governance, but only applies to small portions of the country, but then you get other very clear indicators of how the early governing bodies felt with items like Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, which reads:

 

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

That’s a pretty clear and bold clarification of where we stand on the religion question.

 

The thing is, the Founding Father’s had no clear idea what they thought about religion. Some of them thought we should absolutely include it in our plans for the state, and some thought it needed to be as far away from the law as possible.

 

As is my wont, I have to look at the textual evidence. And the textual evidence paints a pretty weird picture.

 

You find God in state laws. Things like religious tests and oaths pop up in state constitutions all over the place. But, and I need to be very clear on this, God is CONSPICUOUSLY and GLARINGLY absent from federal law. People love to say, “well, he’s on our money!” or whatever. And they make up all kinds of stories about why.

 

And they say, “Well, we included him in the Pledge, so obviously we meant for this to be a Christian nation!” But friends we have talked about that before. “Under God” was put in the Pledge in 1954 and it had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with separating ourselves from our atheist, Communist enemies. Attempts to make the Pledge “Christian” by actually including Jesus in it literally never even made it out of committee. And that’s in the 50s!

 

Are we a religious nation? Maybe culturally. But even that is kind of a ret-con. The truth is, post-early colonial days, Americans weren’t all that religious. During the Founding era not all that many Americans went to church. They were religious the way most Americans are religious today. It’s something they know they are supposed to be, but actually have no connection to it.

 

In other words, our obsession with God has a lot less to do with us being a Christian nation, and a lot more to do with cultural hegemony and the very loud cries of a vocal minority that have been trying to keep us in line for a few hundred years.

 

So WHY does this word theocracy keep coming up in current discourse?

 

Because there is a concerted effort among that very vocal minority to take God out of the church and put him into the seat of government.

 

Dominionism is an ideology that seeks to institute a nation governed by Christians and based on their understandings of biblical law. The label is primarily applied to groups of Christians in the United States. Dominionists have been active since at least the 70s and 80s.

 

Now, I realize that sounds crazy. Even paranoid. I mean, it sounds wild to claim there is this cabal of Christians who are seeking to overtake the government and instill a Christian set of rulers and laws. As an aside, if you aren’t familiar with Project 2025 at this point, I HIGHLY recommend you do some Googling if you still think that kind of thing sounds too nuts for reality, but that’s for another podcast. But as I said, let’s look at the textual evidence.

 

Consider the Alabama IVF case for a moment – LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine. The Court opined that “the relevant statutory text is clear: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies on its face to all unborn children, without limitation.” The Court makes the somewhat bold claim that “Before analyzing the parties’ disagreement about the scope of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, we begin by explaining some background points of agreement. All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death. The parties further agree that an unborn child usually qualifies as a “human life,” “human being,” or “person,” as those words are used in ordinary conversation and in the text of Alabama’s wrongful-death statutes. “

The Courts spend a great deal of time working through dictionary definitions of what “life” is and what a “child” is. Now, just as an aside, I always tell my students that dictionaries are a STARTING point. You don’t live and die by a dictionary. The world is bigger than that. But this Court seems to want to START with a philosophy that is similar to Gorsuch’s – they seem to be focusing on the “ordinary” meaning of the text to arrive at a conclusion. They seem to be operating as textualists.

 

The concurring opinion, however, just goes hogwild. In discussing the necessity of an opinion that outlaws IVF treatments, he discusses the sanctity of life, and he discusses sanctity thusly: “SC-2022-0515; SC-2022-057929 life.” Thus, the history and meaning of the phrase “sanctity of life” informs our understanding of “sanctity of unborn life” as that phrase is used in § 36.06.At the time § 36.06 was adopted, “sanctity” was defined as: “1. holiness of life and character: GODLINESS; 2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred: INVIOLABILITY b pl: sacred objects, obligations, or rights.”

 

He goes even further:

 

This kind of acceptance is not foreign to our Constitution, which in its preamble “invok[es] the favor and guidance of Almighty God,” pmbl., Ala. Const. 2022, and which declares that “all men … are endowed [with life] by their Creator,” Art. I, § 1, Ala. Const. 2022.11 The Alabama Constitution’s recognition that human life is an endowment from God emphasizes a foundational principle of English common law, which has been expressly incorporated as part of the law of Alabama. § 1-3-1, Ala.

 

He continues, “But the principle itself — that human life is fundamentally distinct from other forms of life and cannot be taken intentionally without justification — has deep roots that reach back to the creation of man “in the image of God.” Genesis 1:27 (King James)..” Side note – the fact that he cites the KJV should be a red flag for any serious Biblical scholar.

 

He quotes a 17^th century theologian at length. I don’t know how many women you know, but most of the ones I am familiar with wouldn’t be excited about handing over their bodily autonomy to a 17^th century theologian.

 

Then he cites the 6^th commandment.

 

Y’all that is only in the FIRST SECTION of the concurring opinion.

 

It is one big religious tirade. And these are the people who are making decisions that will affect us – as in, the decisions that change our lives.

 

I point this out because it is a PRIMARY example of one of our leaders trying to force religion into governance.

 

I am a religious person. My faith guides pretty much everything I do. But, and I say this with all the emphasis I can muster, I do NOT use my faith to TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO. That’s like, the opposite of what I’m about.

 

A more recent example of this kind of Dominionism is the law recently passed in Louisiana that the 10 Commandments have to be displayed in every classroom.

 

That is just the crappiest and most pointless law.

 

Something like a 1/3 of Louisiana adults can’t even READ the 10 Commandments. Louisiana is 47^th in the nation in education. The children are starving and the state won’t fund school lunches.

 

Imagine being a child in the classroom. What are you being taught? You’re not important enough to feed or teach to read, but you’ve got a bunch of rules from some God staring down at you. And it doesn’t even say God loves you, it just tells you how to behave. So not only are you learning you are worthless you are learning God only loves you if you follow certain rules.

 

What purpose does that law serve? It makes adults who have plenty to eat and lots of resources feel smugly pious. That’s what it does. Other than that, it just gives kids one more thing to vandalize.

 

I guess the other thing it does is illustrate that there are people who are trying to force Christianity into government. But I think this is indicative of something very important – it’s a very particular brand of Christianity. And it has nothing to do with the love of Christ.

 

Let’s actually talk about Jesus for a sec. What does HE have to say about a Christian government?

 

According to Matthew 4,

 

4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tested by the devil. ² He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was famished. ³ The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” ⁴ But he answered, “It is written,

‘One does not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”

⁵ Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, ⁶ saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’
and ‘On their hands they will bear you up,
so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’ ”

⁷ Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”

⁸ Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, ⁹ and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” ¹⁰ Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written,

‘Worship the Lord your God,
and serve only him.’ ”

 

Just consider those last verses. The devil himself offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world. If we are to believe the New Testament, Christ could have been the actual, legal king of the world. He could have BEEN the government. Just like so many people want now. But what was his response? “AWAY WITH YOU SATAN.”

It couldn’t be more clear.

Lucifer tempted Christ with political power. And Christ recognized that as a fast way to ruination for Him and His message.

So…what are these Dominionists and Christian Nationalists after?

Let me offer you another story –

This one’s the 12^th chapter of Mark:

 

Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. ¹⁴ And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? ¹⁵ Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” ¹⁶ And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” ¹⁷ Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

 

That was supposed to be a trap. The leaders of the day were trying to get Jesus to say, either, ‘Yes, pay Rome,” and piss off his Jewish followers, or, “no, screw Rome,” and get him in trouble with Roman leaders. But he didn’t say either of those things. He said Rome gets what Rome gets and God gets what God gets.

 

What is significant for us in this situation is that Jesus sees these as two very separate things. There is Empire and there is God. They DO NOT mix.

 

This is one of the most befuddling things to me about American Christianity today.

 

Jesus was executed by the state. I mean, he was pretty much a political prisoner. For all the dumb-ass anti-Semitism my fellow believers want to throw at you, Christ was executed by the Romans.

 

And after the Resurrection it was the state that hounded Christ’s followers. Romans persecuted Christians.

 

It was always Empire that threatened Christianity in the early years.

 

And then Constantinople came along and was like, just kidding, the state loves Christians now!

 

And who are we now? American Christians bow and simper before American Empire more than just about anyone. They put their flags and their crosses in the same places on the same levels on the same altars.

 

I’m just going to say it – theocracy is idolatrous. And the people who want to put Jesus in place of the government don’t want a Christian government – they just want to worship the government.