[This is part 1 in a series on “anarcho-theocracy.” See part two, three, four, five, six]

Leaving Egypt Ministries, Obadiah D. Morris

Many people often see “theocracy” as a statist system that has some sort of religious influence on it. For example, when ostensible “Christians” tell us that the satanic system of government can become “Christianized.” Theocracy is supposedly when Christians or some other religious group occupy the seats of political power. This misunderstanding of theocracy continues because many professing Christians use this term for their ungodly fantasy where they aim to invade power centers and establish some perversion of God’s Law.

If you took it from most people, “theocracy” is when professing religious folks take over government, e.g., when George Bushes say they’re “Christians” and bomb children under the banner of “In God We Trust.” People often think of an “Islamic Republic” in the Middle East when they hear “theocracy.” It is thought to be some sort of government like those in Saudi Arabia or Iran. In these places, there are “religious rulers” or an official state religion. In the West, it is thought, we have “freedom of religion.” The political system is thought to be not at all religious in nature and existing outside the paradigm of theocratic systems.

We have been led to believe a misconception. We think that “theocracy”—a social order with God as its only ruler—is defined as a tyrannical political system. It is believed to be headed by priests, clergymen, or other religious folks who have made God out to be a statist like them. We have effectively been made to believe that “theocracy” is like that of the Egyptian systems of old. In those systems, human intermediaries stood between the “gods” and “the people.”

These concepts, however, are nowhere close to a society governed by God. Such a society (as we will argue) would mean an absence of a State.

The statist conception of godly theocracy

One article I came across says that the cycle of tyranny in our world is one of an “endless theocracy.” The article suggests that all the systems of our world are “theocracies.” They range from the supposedly “religious” regimes of the past to the supposedly secular-statist orders of the present. They are all said to be tyrannical. It’s impossible to get away from this theocratic tyranny no matter what. Whatever men do, according to this writer, they are caught in tyrannical theocracies.

It is true that these statist systems are tyrannical “theocratic” regimes. This occurs whether they are pseudo-Christian or supposedly secular. We must consider that theocracy is an inescapable concept. All social systems are indeed “theocratic” in a sense that we will explore.

Anarcho-theocracy

But this dichotomy of “deist” or “secular” theocratic-statism limits the options to either a Saudi Arabian type of government to the modern American type of government. It suggests two main options: quasi-theistic statism and “secular” statism. However, both of these are false theocracies when we define the term as the rule by God. Such a dichotomy where only various statist systems are called theocratic leaves out the true, anarchistic theocracy of liberty under God. In this “system,” God is the only legitimate archist or ruler. There is no State that is pretending to be godly, holy, or Christian.

Men have long adopted a statist definition and understanding of theocracy. This view has scared everyone away from the concept. “We don’t want to be ruled by George Bush…we need a separation of church and state.” But true theocracy is not statist at all if we define theocracy as a rule by God. But typical statist definitions define theocracy “a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler.” This presents a great amount of confusion. It is also entirely wrong when trying to explain genuine theocracy. As one Christian author points out,

”It is a serious error to see theocracy, the rule by God, as a government over men by a group of men in the name of God. The Biblical doctrine of theocracy means self-government of the Christian man” (R.J. Rushdoony).

As we see, popular definitions of theocracy have not helped us. They fail to depict what true theocracy looks like. They tell us that theocracy is “a form of government in which God is recognized as the supreme civil ruler of the state, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom.” If they would have left out “the State,” they would have been right. True theocracy, by definition of the world, means God is the ruler. It is not when a State claims to have God in it.

The false religion of statism

As we see, the confusion that is apparent when we start talking about “theocracy” leaves a lot to be explained. State regimes are called theocracies? But they’re also rebellious to the law-order of God? We can even concede that statism might be called religious and theocratic in some sense? But also it’s not a true theocracy? What then is true theocracy? And why should we also maintain at the same time that statism is still religious in nature?

It is true in a sense that all social orders are necessarily theocratic. You can never really get away from a “theocratic” order of some type. Any law-system that a people set up becomes their “god.” It also becomes their “religion,” even if it is not the true God of the Bible.

So we aren’t really asking, how do we escape theocracy? The question is rather which “theocracy” do you want to live under? The (1) rule by God? Or (2) the systems of men?

Those “atheist” statists who believe they have escaped the religious paradigm and want a “secular” government that doesn’t involve “religion” are confused. There is no such thing as “separation of religion and state” when the State itself is a people’s “god” and “religion.” Statism is a “secular” religion in itself that may well be called “theocratic” for reasons we will further explore. There is really no such thing as “atheism” either. Men cannot actually escape being religious. All men are religious, even if the State is their “god” rather than the Lord. The choice is more so between the true religion of God’s kingdom and the false religion of statism. As Michael Plaisted wrote,

“The discrepancy is never between “God” and “no god,” it is only between “the one true God” and the “pantheon of human institutions.” Everyone is religious, by definition. You either practice public religion, by giving up your taxes so your neighbor can receive benefits, or you can practice pure and undefiled religion by volunteering your charity so your neighbor can receive benefits. Everyone must belong to a society. The society of polytheists is bound in contracts, entitlements, and taxation. The society of Christians is bound in faith, hope, and charity.”

Which theocracy?

Broadly speaking, then, theocracy is an inescapable concept. We needn’t refute the idea that statism is not “theocratic” whatsoever. There is a religious element to statism that we must maintain is present. But we do need to point out that this “statist theocracy” is incompatible with the kingdom of God. It is “theocratic” because it is a “religious” system. However, it is the religion of statism and not the true theocracy of God’s rule.

Our main goal should be distinguishing between different types of theocracies. We should not attempt to argue that one system is theocratic while the other is “secular.” In this sense, not all theocracies are genuine, just as there is the one true God and false gods. They are not all the same. We cannot say that (1) genuine theocracy of liberty under God is similar to (2) the “theocracy” of state rule (whether supposedly theist or supposedly non-secular). They do not produce the same result of tyranny in some endless trap of evil theocracy.

Distinguishing true theocracy from false

We cannot fail to make such distinctions. We should not lump everything together as “theocratic.” This includes everything from (2) religious-influenced statism to “secular” statism. It also includes (1) a “Christian anarchist” society that upholds Christ as King. If we do so without explanation, we make no room for the vast differences in the type of social system described by God and those that are set up by men. If we use a strict definition of “theocracy,” we mean (1) a society of people who’s only ruler is God. This does not include any (2) false religious system like statism. It is not true that any of the systems today can truly be called by that name. In fact, they are the opposite. At best, they are “theocracies” opposed to (1) the true theocracy of God’s liberty.

As far as the above article goes, it sees our history of tyranny as one of “endless theocracy.” Perhaps “endless false gods” would better describe history and the present age. This phrase describes history better. It does so by critiquing the dismissal of the genuine, anarcho-theocracy of God’s free society. It avoids favoring the statist “theocracies” as the only kind. These are “theocratic” only because we must consider statism to be a (false) religion too. The problem is that men have always sought false theocracies.

At the very least, we must distinguish between two concepts. The first is the theocracy as understood in its true sense of God as the ruler. The second is the political “theocracies” of men that uphold man-kings as their gods. These lead to wholly different outcomes.

As we will show, (1) true theocracy is diametrically opposed to (2) these statist systems of the world. It is a society governed by God alone and is thus “anarchist” as far as human rulers go.

It, therefore, makes little sense to call everything a theocracy without explaining that some are false and some are true. There are vast differences even though we can still consider (2) statism to be a secular religion or “theocracy.” We must distinguish between (1) the social order that God instructs us to have. This means “have no other gods before me.” We must also distinguish (2) the false theocracies of men. They lead to either (1) liberty or (2) slavery.

Godarchy and anarchy

People are mistaken when they say the problem with our world today is “theocracy.” In their minds, they mean the contradiction of a Christian-influenced State. We may call statism “theocratic” to address it as a false religion. However, this “theocracy” is unrelated to the Kingdom of God. Therefore, God is not to blame for the statist problems we have today. The absence of God is the reason for our problems today. This absence becomes apparent when men raise up political systems to rule over them.

We can clear up some confusion by avoiding the corrupted definition that we addressed in the outset. If by theocracy we mean strictly and by definition (1) a Godarchist society, then God is our only ruler. We cannot say that the problem with (2) our Egyptian statist society is supposedly one of “theocracy.” This would imply there exists in our world an actual social order of liberty under God when there doesn’t. Our world is one that is infested by the false theocracy of human government.

It is not then the fault of God or men who follow God that we live under tyrannical regimes today. The “statist theocracy,” for lack of a better term, is the very thing God opposes. The statist religion is an enemy of true theocracy. We may consider it to be a “theocracy” of its own, but it doesn’t have God in it. Statism is an enemy of true theocracy. It is the difference between men as gods and God as God. We might even say that God has never called His people to be anarchist. Many understand this in the “no gods” sense of the term. But He has called his people away from the theocratic regimes of the world. He has called us to make the Lord alone our God (Gen 28:21; Ex 15:2, 19:8; Deut 4:35, 6:4-5, 26:17; Isa 45:21; Jer 24:7, 30:22, 31:33; Hos 2:23; Psa 48:14, 50:7, 81:8). In other words, God has called us to be Godarchists — to have God as our only God. This is effectively “anarchist” as far as the kingdoms of men are concerned.

Men do not really face the choice of avoiding God/gods altogether. The real question, again, is who is your God? Is it (1) the Lord or (2) the false gods of the world? The question is not, are you religious or secular? As one article points out,

“Once we examine and understand how the term ‘gods’ has been used in history and therefore how it is often meant to be understood in the Bible, we can conclude that almost every government is a theocracy of sorts. The difference is: Is your ‘god’ the gods of government, or is your God the God of heaven?”

The ungodly theocracy of statism

We might say it’s impossible to truly escape “theocracy.” Even the false systems of man are their own sort of “religious” orders. The real question is which theocracy are we to live under. It is crucial to decide between a society ruled by God or one ruled by men. This decision changes everything. One means liberty under God, and the other means slavery under statism. The true theocracy of God is not statist whatever. As the above article goes on to say,

“The chief difference between the Kingdom of God and other governments of the world is that there is no centralization of the power of choice because there are no rulers.”

Statist systems are not Godly ones. They do not embody the spirit of the Lord. However, they are still systems of (false) gods. This makes them “theocratic” in this sense of the term. When we include the statist religion under this umbrella, we demonstrate that theocracy can never be completely eliminated. Abandoning God’s social order for statism is merely trading out one theocracy for another. However, it would be completely wrong to say that all of them lead to tyranny, as the article above suggests. This is the result only of the so-called “theocracy” which is not (truly) a theocracy at all: the ungodly order of statism. It abandons God’s order and sets up a society of human dictators in His place. These dictators plunder and enslave humanity.

Men can never get away from having a “god.” But if they make God their God, they can get away from the false gods of the world who use political power to exercise authority over them. Men will necessarily be ruled by man-gods as long as they are not Godarchists or Christarchists. Godarchists hold the Lord as their only legitimate authority, which is the only legitimate Christian political position. Those who reject God’s rulership and choose (2) the “theocracy” of statism will find themselves dominated by men who claim to be the legitimate authorities. Statocracy is the result of a people who reject Godarchism. We live in a statist society today because men have turned away from God. Instead, they have made men their gods.

Men are never truly godless, as is sometimes said of communists who reject the God of the Bible. But it matters very much who they make their god. When men make the State their god, they are asking to be robbed and enslaved.

Problems with calling statism a religion

We have argued that statism is not a genuine theocracy because it upholds men as gods. However, there are some problems with saying that man’s political systems are not “theocracies” too. We do not want to imply that there is truly some non-theocratic system. We also do not want to suggest that men can actually run from God and religion altogether and establish a “secular” order. Men can never really escape religion. They face the problem of choosing either God or false gods.

If we don’t insist that statism is in some sense theocratic, we risk making men believe that they can participate in these systems while claiming to have allegiance to God at the same time. We open the door to making men believe they can escape from theocracy altogether. If we do this, both “atheists” and “Christian statists” will attempt to weasel their way out of charges that they are buying into a false religion by accepting the State. They can think that there is a “religious realm” and a “political realm” that do not collide, when the type of political order that one has—whether statist or stateless under God—is necessarily the type of theocracy that one has chosen. The “atheist statists” can believe they are not religious at all when they have merely abandoned God for false gods. The “Christian statists” can say such absurdities as “Jesus is my Lord, but Trump is my president,” not realizing that they are likewise confessing men to be their gods.

We must insists that statism “religion” even though it is not the true religion. Its adherents have joined on faith and have the State as their god. These are mutually exclusive theocracies. Those who buy into (2) the statist religion have abandoned (1) the true theocracy of God’s rule.

While we have considered statism to be a theocracy of sorts too, true theocratic order is one where the Lord is King. Statism is a society where men are made into kings. Therefore, (2) statism is the furthest thing from (1) a truly godly, theocratic social order! It is not truly theocratic because it does not have God as its ruler. However, we might consider it theocratic in the sense that it has become a “god” in itself.

The theocracy of God is distinct from the secular “religion” of man’s statist systems. One abides by the commandment, “thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The other rejects that and makes men into gods. So it wouldn’t make any sense to say that they are actually the same thing. The former does not lead to tyranny as the latter does. “Theocratic tyranny” is not inescapable whether one chooses God as their ruler or man-gods. Only the latter—the theocracy of statism—leads to tyranny. These very different results show us the problem. We cannot consider both liberty under God and statist systems to be “theocracies” without qualifying our terms. We need to make these important distinctions.

The present system of statism (2) is really only a “theocracy” insofar as we consider statism to be a false god system of men. But we have to be careful in our classification of statism as a religio-theocratic order of sorts. The basic danger of calling statism a “theocracy” is that people might assume the state religion is the true theocracy. They might think it is as prescribed by God. They might think true theocracy is actually statist. They might believe the popular understanding of theocracy is what God actually wants men to set up.

But it is not true that (1) God’s system of liberty is (2) a “theocracy” of this sort. As far as God is concerned, a “statist theocracy” does not make sense. Statist systems, which uphold men are god-kings, negate the rulership of God. They substitute the rule by men for the rule by God. Defining theocracy as a rule by God shows statism to be an anti-theocracy if anything. It is a system that upholds men as “gods” and rejects God as God. It is “theocratic” only in the sense that the State has become the theos.

To call (2) statist, authoritarian systems “theocratic” without any explanation of what a true theocracy entails is thus incorrect and undiscerning. It would allow people to think that statist systems are approved of and commanded by God. However, such systems are actually rival kingdoms. They oppose the true, anarchistic theocracy of God as the sole ruler.

Rather than explaining how the statist system before us is a false “theocracy,” this article on “endless theocracy” conflates the two systems. It does not explain how statism goes against God’s social order. The “religiously”-influenced statist systems and the secular ones are both said to be “theocracies.” In truth, neither of them are in the truest sense of the term. They both reject God. A religio-statist theocracy is, at best, “Christian” in name only. In the article’s opening thesis, he says that it “turns out that all great social movements, even the most deist and secular, are born in faith and resolve in theocracy.” So he thinks that even a truly godly social movement would still be tyranny, which is what he means here by “theocracy.”

Statism is a false theocracy

It is true that statism is a sort of “secular religion.” Even God is willing to say that these people are seeking false gods. But these state systems are never theocratic in the Biblical sense, which is (1) liberty under God and not life under man’s political systems. They are not (1) a “rule by God,” but (2) a “rule by men.”

In this sense the kingdoms of men are not really theocracies, keeping strictly to the definition of God’s rule. Statist systems are rebellions against the social order or theocracy of God. They are at best a theocracy of false gods, which we have conceded here.

The problem is that men have regarded only the statist systems of the world as theocratic, while disregarding the true, anarchistic theocracy of God altogether. The statist religion has tarnished the idea of men being ruled by God alone. Men have been scared away from the idea of theocracy without even knowing the idea in its truest sense.

The only true theocracy is anarcho-theocracy: a stateless society under God’s rule. To go further, the only true “anarchy” is a theocratic one. For a people who do not make God their ruler will be subject to the rulership of men. There is no such thing as secular anarchism nor Christian statism. To uphold Christ as the King means to reject the kingships of men, and the kingships of men are only successfully rejected when men uphold the Lord as their God