With the end of summer comes the official election season, the beginning of a thirteen month stretch in which the public must endure Republican candidates droning on about Social Security, political pundits blabbering about tax cuts, and leftist journalists screeching about the impending theocracy. 
Although they have been repeating the same warnings since the mid-1980s, the leftist theophobes are certain that this is finally the year when the theonomists storm the National Archives and replace the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments.
When this issue was in the news in 2007, I noted in National Review Online that more than half of American evangelicals are either Baptists or nondenominational—groups that don’t even want a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church. Why would we want a theocracy?
Theocracy, which literally means “rule by the deity,” is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent God on earth both directly and immediately. The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws. But who among the current crop of candidates could we find to fill that role? Conservative Catholics wouldn’t accept a priest who wasn’t answerable to the Vatican and conservative evangelicals wouldn’t accept one who was. And while we may tune it to watch the royal wedding of William and Kate, most folks on the Chrisitian right share the sentiment of England’s Fifth Monarchy men: “No King but King Jesus.”
The more savvy theophobes recognize that no one is proposing to install a traditional theocracy, which is why they now claim that the type of regime the Religious Right is advocating will be brought about by what they call “dominionism.” Supposedly, this is a philosophy in which, “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”
This new variation of alarmism is only slightly less idiotic than the hand-wringing about Reconstructionism. But it does have the benefit of at least being theoretically compatible with a republican form of government.
Instead of pointing out, as others have done, why this new variation of scaremongering is nonsense, let’s give it a moment’s consideration: What if America did become a dominionist-style theocracy? What would happen then?
The first thing that would need to occur is the disenfranchisement of about a quarter of the population. It would be difficult enough to get Christians to agree to only vote for Christians so we’d need to retract the political franchise from all non-Christians to make the system workable.
Having made this necessary concession to the dystopian fantasy of the theophobic left, let’s proceed in our thought experiment on the basis of what is actually (somewhat) plausible. That will require excising all silliness about the threat of theonomy, since that tiny movement is not an actual threat. You could fit all of the genuine hardcore Reconstructionists in America into the conference room of the Holiday Inn in Helena, Montana Fan Club and still have room for a square-dancing competition.
Instead of a system suitable for Reconstructionists, what would happen if normal, ordinary Christians were to implement a republican-style theocracy? What would change? What would the nation look like if we became the Dominionist States of America?
Here is the most plausible scenario I can imagine:
• After agreeing that it's no longer applicable to a country that was founded by Unitarians and Deists, the term “Christian nation” is forbidden from being used in reference to the pre-dominionist era (i.e., from 1776-2012).
• The Marriage Protection Amendment is added to the U.S. Constitution, setting gay rights legislation back to the regressive year of 2003. The Human Life Amendment is stalled in Congress as pro-life factions fight over which of the 330 previously submitted proposals should be implemented.
• A revision is made to the First Amendment in which the words “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of religion” is underlined and put in bold font. High school valedictorians—whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew—are extended the same right to pray at graduations as Supreme Court justices and members of Congress have had throughout our country’s history.
• A national ban on pornography is implemented. The prohibition has a negligible effect since there is already more porn on the hard drives of computers in Christian homes than was produced from the death of Caligula to the birth of Hugh Hefner.
• Creationism and Intelligent Design theory are included alongside the theory of evolution in school curricula. Students are forced to learn three theories, the details of which they'll have forgotten about by graduation day.
• Congress passes the Christian Television Act which requires (a) every show must have as many Christian characters as homosexual characters, (b) Catholic characters must not be limited to elderly Latino women, Irish priests, and lapsed nuns, and (c) CBS must bring back Touched by an Angel.
And . . . well, that’s about the most that could ever happen.
Perhaps my ability to imagine a more robust form of Christian theocracy is dulled by the fact that I know so many actual Christians. The average Christian in America isn’t all that radical, which is why I think my list is a fair representation of the worst-case scenario. We would not have a zombified R.J. Rushdoony returning from the dead to stone men who lie with men and children who lie to their parents. We’d merely have average Christians acting much like average Christian acts now.
Most Christians merely want a return to the standard of public morality that prevailed during the country’s first two hundred years. As Ramesh Ponnuru has said about the “values voter” hysteria of 2004, “Nearly every one of these policies—and all of the most conservative ones—would merely turn the clock back to the late 1950s. That may be a very bad idea, but the America of the 1950s was not a theocracy.”
Indeed it is not. America was not a theocracy in 1950 and it won’t be a theocracy in 2050. Everyone, even the theophobes, knows this is true. The fact is that the journalists behind God Scare 2011 really aren’t concerned about dominionism. They aren’t really afraid that America is hurtling toward theocracy; they merely fear that our nation is drifting away from their goal of a secularacracy.
They need not worry. We’ll get there soon enough. And many Christians will be leading the way.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Joe Carter, Theocracy in America
Jeremy Pierce, Dominionismists
Joe Carter, A Journalism Lesson for the New Yorker
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
If modern evangelicals have a problem, it's that too many of them worship Mammon, not that they want a theocracy.
Nick, your "thank goodness" might not apply against the growing islamic population in the US, as reflected by:
"In 2001 there were more than 1,200 mosques in the US; that figure is now possibly 1,500 or more."- http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/america-north/usa-islam/
There goes the separation of church and state safety zone...
Say what you will about theocracies, but it is undeniable that Victorian England was effectively a theocratic state. The world still enjoy the benefits of that period up till today. In fact you could argue that the great decline of the European nations began when they ceased being theocratic in nature.
Christianity is the only great religion that has dispensed with the need for theocracies. Not so with Islam. Most of the world's Islamic nations are also theocratic governments. The result: the native population of "post-Christian" western Europe is dwindling, while Islamic immigrants move in, multiply prolifically, and take over. Most of Europe will be Islamic in less than two generations, if this trend is not reversed.
The main question in the future will not be whether you want to live in a theocratic nation or not, but whether you prefer an Islamic theocracy or a Christian one.
But yeah nothing remotely like theocracy is really plausible in the US. In fact no nation has been a Christian theocracy, unless you count the Vatican as one (I am Catholic BTW), for decades or maybe centuries. To do the equivalent of even something like Malaysia does for the Muslim-majority (make leaving Christianity difficult, have "Christian family law" for issues of marriage or divorce, and have laws against sodomy for those Christians whose faith deems it wrong) is highly implausible.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but someone pointed out what utter nonsense Michele Bachmann's explanation of being "submissive" to her husband meant. ("I respect my husband. And he respects me as his wife. That’s how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other.”) It is a nice sentiment, but it has nothing to do with the Biblical command for wives to be submissive to their husbands, which is of course what she was alluding to in her original remarks. The point is that any serious candidate for the presidency will shift to the "mainstream" if his or her religious views seem too extreme to the American people.
Much of the population follows a superficial, debased, high school, football, pop culture idea of life. An amazing percentage of Republican politicians were male cheerleaders in school: Ronald Reagan, Trent Lot, and now Rick Perry. Rick Perry was a C+ student and male cheerleader at Texas A&M. Not long ago, he had a prayer day in Austin.
Such persons are extremely influential, and get many votes, from the Bubba class.
Abraham Lincoln issued several proclamations calling for prayer and repentance; let's have some thoughtful discussion of them.
"With the coming of Christianity, a very different society emerged - a religious society (i.e. The Church), that was, nonetheless, distinct from the State. Although this distinction (not separation in the modern sense) sometimes was blurred at times, it created a kind of freedom and dynamism in Western culture for centuries. It is precisely because the State is allowed to function as State, and the Church as Church, and yet there is a beneficial correspondence between the two, that has been a source of great fruitfulness over the millennia. Therefore, I say thank goodness we have no prospect of becoming a Theocracy. "
Nick Zinos, I totally agree with you. I personally don't believe in god and religion, I just think it brings some kind of balance in life. People need to believe in something to give them hope and freedom.( I won't believe in anything unless I see it!!!) It's just the way it is and I just accept it.
I disagree, slightly. I believe that, properly speaking, there is no such thing as a "theocracy," because I take that word literally, to mean: the direct rule of God on earth, without intermediaries.
Instead, I believe the more accurate term is clerical dictatorship. For example: The present Government of Iran is a clerical dictatorship. It is by the will of, and the prejudices of, and for the benefit of, the Shia clerical clique based in the city of Qom.
So...women can't vote? It's legal to sexually discriminate against them in the work place, to rape and beat wives in the home? Who needs pornography when your wife can't say no, and you can coerce your secretary into performing sexual favors without fear of reciprocity. Not that women will be able to articulate any resistance to this change, since I imagine they'll no longer be permitted entrance into universities.
"Merely" a return to two hundred year old morality?
You seem cynical. I wonder what a generation of Catholics nourished by John Paul II's Christian humanism (the foundational aspect of which is an emphasis upon religious freedom) will make happen in years to come.
It's also a valuable project to help "secularacracists" see the blatant theological underpinnings of their conception of a Secular (de-Christianized) ethical system and government. Unfortunately, most secularists are too near-sighted to see that our entire conception of "morality" has been elevated since the advent of Christianity--starting with step one, seeing each person as made in the image of the (specifically) Christian God.
In a sense, our government, which is founded on the idea of individual, inalienable rights derived from a transcendent Creator, is fundamentally ruled by a deity--or at least, by people whose claim to have any say rests in a dignity granted them by a deity.
anyway.
And that is what the Obama Administration was when its political party controlled both houses of Congress. It was entirely concentrated on achieving its ends, without regard to any constraints on the means of government. It felt no need to follow the Constitution because it derived its authority from its divine mission, not from the consent of the governed that is moderated through the Constitution.
Now that the House of Representatives has been lost by the Democrats, the continuing actions of the Obama Executive Branch, including the notion that the NLRB "owns" Boeing on behalf of its labor unions, and that the government will not only refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act but unilaterally declare it illegal per se, are all actions of governance that disregard the means and focus solely on the ends. It is wholly indistinguishable from a theocracy.
"I believe that, properly speaking, there is no such thing as a "theocracy," because I take that word literally, to mean: the direct rule of God on earth, without intermediaries"
True. And the Islamic mullahs enforcing Sharia law all over the Muslim world would heartily agree with you.
I'd like to hear more about your inability to distinguish between a democratically elected president and a theocracy. Do tell.
Well, actually, I don't think they'll win out in the *end*. It's like in economics where you have the short term, the long term, and the long, long term. I believe that in the long, long term (50+ years), Christian morality will become dominant once again. But I think in the short term (5-10 years) and the long term (10-30 years) the trend line is against us.
To use another metaphor from the economy, we are in a "Great Contraction" on many moral issues (some we are doing better on than in the past). We'll regain ground on them but it will take awhile. For instance we should be pleased that the pro-life view is becoming more popular. But we have a long way to go before it gets back to the level it was before the 1970s.
@Teddy ***You seem cynical.***
I don't mean to be. While I'm pessimistic about the short term, I am wildly optimistic about the long run.
Gosh, 1976 was a whole lot worse that I remember!
But then I realized that there are many more Christian denominations than world religions. There is ample fussing among Christian denominations; the feuding preoccupies them so much that they could never agree on any one thing and "take over the whole country," the way other world religions might.
America has plenty to fear, but domestic Christianity isn't one of them.
Joe Carter, you convey the words my heart yearns for.
We're leading the way, reverting back to orthodoxy in due part to Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity. I think the late World Youth Day in Madrid, Spain reflects the JPII and BXVI generation's desire for Christ and objective truth in a world that cannot give all the answers to life's questions.
This alone is a good enough reason to be militantly opposed to the dystopia you present. Gladly, I agree with you; there is almost no chance that this will ever occur.
I will be among those Christians leading the way to Laïcité. It's the way I think our country should be.
A plank of the official Texas GOP platform is to re-criminalize sodomy and make same-sex marriage a felony. The American Family Association's spokesman, Bryan Fischer, has called for the same, as has Rick Santorum.
I think your estimates are slightly off there.
True, an actual theocracy won't come about without a military coup. (Some people do worry about certain organizations actively evangelizing in the ranks, though.) But implementing big chunks of a theocratic agenda? That's a more credible threat.
From my observations, it's hard enough getting xtians to arrive at church on time with any punctuality, let alone get organized enough to stage a theocratic putsch.
The "dominionist" hysteria is getting to be laughable. The only mystery is why this meme has proven so persistent.
But please, whatever you do, don't bring back "Touched by an Angel". It rather degenerated into depicting angels as more than anything else being like over-solicitous social case workers for a Big Bureacratic Welfare Department In The Sky.
I think that could be a bit of an exaggeration. Only "a bit" because you've said "it is undeniable that Victorian England was effectively a theocratic state." The majority of Muslim nations are as "theocratic" as Victorian England. If one sees Victorian England as theocratic, and I'm going to assume you mean the period of the Victorian age before Jewish Emancipation, than possibly a majority of Islamic nations could be deemed theocratic.
Still Albania, Kazakhstan, Mali, Senegal, and Turkey are generally secular states. I think most of the West African Muslim nations, exempting Nigeria, and the Balkan-Muslim nations are not theocratic. Not even in the "early Victorian" sense. I'm not sure if many of the former Soviet Republics with Muslim-majorities have much role for Islamic law either.
I've said it before, myself. All the talk about "traditional family values" is no more than nostalgia for the security, stability, and prosperity of 1950's America.
The movie PLEASANTVILLE reminded us of what was simmering under the surface in those halcyon days.
It will come as no surprise to learn that the interpretation of that text was still being argued over in the courts in 2008 (HM Advocate v BL) The vexed question of a deceased wife’s sister kept the courts busy for a century, following the rise of the German school of biblical criticism.
Oh! By the way, we still have a law (1661 c 20) against beating and cursing parents, by anyone “not distracted.” It remained capital for those over 16 until 1887, but the pains of law were invariably restricted. It still carries a potential life sentence. “Cursing” requires an actual malediction; what one judge rather primly called “’Be off with you’, or words to that effect” are not within the statute. As the courts have also held that “it would be a very serious matter to hold that expressions uttered under the influence of intoxication, as here proved, show such a settled purpose of mind, as to bring them under the statute," it is something of a dead letter.
Theocracy is good for lawyers.
Maybe if you define "Islamic Nation" as a nation with Islam as a state religion, etc. making it by definition a theocracy.
If you just look at the countries with the largest Muslim populations, though, you will see that it is simply untrue that they are mostly theocracies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
For the record, the eight largest Muslim nations are:
Indonesia -Secular
Pakistan
India -Secular
Bangladesh -Secular
Egypt
Nigeria -Secular
Iran
Turkey -Secular
What is more evident are the socio-political, cultural and global directions taken by these states, e.g. migration, prayer time in some companies, etc., As for the clergy, these are the representatives of Allah and their "dictatorship" if you must, is really Allah speaking through them.
Meanwhile some excellent discernment types are getting it and taking you to task:
from the Discernment Research Group (Discernment Ministries):
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2011/09/who-invented-dominionism.html
100% nails it.
"You may brand it differently but most of the islamic government structures are entwined in their belief systems."
How? Provide examples.
"As to the degree that government and religious practices are merged is really not important, the basis of government is the islamic religious law. "
The degree isn't important? I take it you see no difference between the United Kingdom and Iran (they both have state religions!).
The US does not have a state religion in deference to the separation of church and state principle. There is a huge difference between US and Iran ,for example, "According to popular interpretations of Islam, Muslims are not free to change religion or become an atheist: denying Islam and thus becoming an apostate is traditionally punished by death in men and by life imprisonment in women" see Wikipedia.
Even a cursory reading of some of the most catastrophic periods of human history provides some insights into the broader inclinations to pursue secular goals, as when the bubonic plague struck Europe in 1348-1350. Even though a staggering number of people died, the remainder availed themselves of one of the most notable periods of wealth transfer in human history and civilization concurrently marched on.
Now, it could be argued that those were times when ideas traveled laboriously, and the enforcement of religious doctrine was spotty as folks could-in Spain, for one-simply claim they believed or disavowed a previously held belief. In view of the fact that news of the Crusaders' rapacity (their trains of plunder occasionally reached tens of miles in length) was widespread, I imagine it was hardly to any religious order's advantage to have such disappointed citizenry arrayed against a decidedly "holy" enterprise....
Either way, any catastrophe serious enough to bring about the sort of theocracy that would have us wearing our underwear on the outside and changing it every half hour, would no doubt also stimulate the sort of movement of refugees that some wars of attrition, like Viet Nam, in recent history caused, likely leaving the faithful with an awful lot of work on their hands, trying to run a country the size of this one. I, for one, have my lawn chair and six-pack ready. Oh, and binoculars....
Prior to Christendom, Religion and State were almost always one and same. The people's religion was the civic religion (something that St. Augustine criticizes severely in The City of God), and because of the dominant power of the State, the State usually manipulated the civic religion to its own end.
With the coming of Christianity, a very different society emerged - a religious society (i.e. The Church), that was, nonetheless, distinct from the State. Although this distinction (not separation in the modern sense) sometimes was blurred at times, it created a kind of freedom and dynamism in Western culture for centuries. It is precisely because the State is allowed to function as State, and the Church as Church, and yet there is a beneficial correspondence between the two, that has been a source of great fruitfulness over the millennia. Therefore, I say thank goodness we have no prospect of becoming a Theocracy.