Politics and Theocracy

Should Christians actively seek to dominate public office?

The central focus of Reformation should be the Church and its discipling of men and families. This will have the salt-light affect in every vocation the men are called to, politics included. As the Church's discipleship extends its influence, men will come forward as viable candidates in their communities for office (Deut 18:21 directly applies). The world around may balk at their faith in Christ, but won't be able to gainsay the service they provide the community in office. Because of their integrity, they will change the system, instead of the system corrupting them. (This could take several generations from now to trickle up to national offices. Most often now, one's integrity gets one booted or squeezed out. I think starting local is key.)

Politics is a mirror reflecting society's values. We shouldn't try to change society's values through politics, like drawing a mustache on your reflection in the mirror. We should stay groomed ourselves, and then keep the mirror clean, too. Don't ignore politics as inherently corrupt or useless. Be involved to take dominion of the earth. But know that politics reflects and (at most) preserves values, it doesn't advance or create them. (This isn't to say politics is not a worthwhile vocation; it certainly is!) And also remember that we are pilgrims waiting to inherit another city (Rev 21:2). God has established that other city, and it is in conflict with the "city of man." A great resource to unpack this idea is Peter Leithart's "Against Christianity." Politically provocative, but helpful.




Should Christian theocracy be the goal of US Christians?

"A theocracy is a system of government where the religious authorities govern, either directly or through the subjection of the state to the church."

I *think* I'd agree with rejecting this definition of theocracy. Though I have trouble finding the mandate to separate civil and religious authority in Scripture. I see that that is how it was with Samuel/Saul, Israel's priests/kings, but at the points of Israel's greatest faithfulness the offices are melded: David wears the linen of the priest (1 Chronicles 15:27), as Samuel did for a time. Moses and the elders had both civil and religious authority under Torah. Even Romans 13 can be read either way - the one who bears the sword might also bear the Word without violating the passage's meaning. I believe the history of the West has led us to this practice more than Scripture. Which doesn't make it wrong, just not required by Scripture. Someone give me a clear argument that Scripture *requires* the separation of civil and religious authorities. I'm certainly open to it. I agree the separation is a legitimate interpretation of Scripture (WCF chapter 23), but am not sure it is the only legit one. This would look something like the Ayatollahs, but substitute grace for the legalism, and discipleship for the cruel punishments. The religious leaders have so much influence on the community (political life) that civil magistrates need to follow them. There can be varying degrees of this. IF I thought this was a good idea (not sure myself yet), I'd probably argue for an "indirect theocracy," where there is still a distinction between civil and religious. The civil magistrate can legally do whatever he wants, but since the Church has the influence in society it is supposed to (!), if the state officeholder starts going haywire, he'll be out of office next month.