Every Society Is Already a Theocracy
In every society, there's a point past which there's no appeal.
In Douglas Wilson’s own words: 8 quotes from 2010 to 2026, from Mere Christendom, NPR and A Serrated Edge, each cited to the source.
If there is a court of appeal past our human government, then in principle I have admitted theocracy. If there is no court of appeal past them, then I have just made them god. Having made them god, I discover that I am still in a theocracy, but instead of a loving Father, the theos of this system is corrupt and grasping, mendacious and low, and full of a flatulent hubris.
Why are we so afraid of theocracy? What might happen? Might we go on a rampage and kill sixty million babies? Yeah, that would be bad. Better not risk it. Might we set up a surveillance state, with camera clusters pointed in every direction at all the intersections? Right—theocracies are terrible like that. The real reason why our current rulers want us to react violently whenever we hear the word theocracy is that petty gods are always jealous of their position, and dread any talk of a Lord who rose from the dead.
[Leila Fadel: "But you would have to change portions of the Constitution to become a theocracy."] Actually, no. [Leila Fadel: "I mean, a lot of constitutional scholars would disagree with you."] Yeah, I disagree with them... Here, there's an important issue. All societies are theocratic. In every society, there's a point past which there's no appeal. There's always got to be a "the buck stops here." And when you've identified the point past which there is no appeal, you've identified the God of the system. [In] secular democracies, the God is demos, the people. In Saudi Arabia, the God is Allah. In a Christian republic, the God would be the Father of Jesus Christ... So my argument for Christian nationalism is very simple. If this is the state or society and God is over that society—if there is no God over the state, then the state becomes God.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
For example, when we consider the "concept" of Deity, we see that it is "not whether, but which." It is not whether we will serve God, but rather which god we will serve. It is not whether we will impose morality through law, but rather which morality we will impose, and so on.
When most people hear about a "theocratic" anything, they assume they will soon be confronted with ayatollah-manned death panels. But all societies are theocratic, with the only thing distinguishing them being the nature and attributes of the reigning theos. Since our current theos happens to be a bloodthirsty maniac, and because I am not a devotee of that particular religion, I would urge my fellow citizens to turn away from him and turn to our heavenly Father.
One of the things I learned from Rushdoony is the idea of the inescapable concept—not whether but which. It is not whether we will impose morality, but rather which morality we will impose. As a confessing Christian, it is my desire to impose a Christian morality. But this is not to say that this would shut down the nonbeliever’s right to say anything.
As a Christian who believes that all governments are theocratic in principle, I want our deep suspicions about the depravity of human nature to begin with our rulers, and not with their subjects. […] This is not a softening of “theocracy,” but rather a foundational application of it.
It's not whether we will have a particular worldview as the foundation for our law. It's which worldview... Every government has minorities that don't go along with the reigning worldview. And nevertheless, the law based on that worldview is imposed on them. Right? So it's not whether but which. So yeah, a Muslim who came to America, if America were a Christian nation, a Muslim who came here would need to submit to laws that were framed with a Christian rationale. Just as if I moved to Saudi Arabia today, I would fully expect to have to deal with their God and the laws that were framed on the character and nature of their God.