Theocracy

The word theocracy originates from the Greek: θεοκρατία (theocratia) meaning "the rule of God". This, in turn, derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule". Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).

Theocracy

The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century AD to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. However, according to Josephus, the government of the Jews was unique. Josephus offered the term "theocracy" to describe this polity in which a god was sovereign and his word was law.[4]

The term theocracy derives from the Koine Greek θεοκρατία, "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah,[6] reflecting the view that "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state.[7] The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, may be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy.[8]

In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the deity or deities of that civilization's religion or belief, such as Muhammad's leadership of the early Muslims with prophecies from Allah. In an ecclesiocracy, the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation.

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, there are two meanings for the word "theocracy": (1) government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided; and (2) a state governed by a theocracy.

Afghanistan was an Islamic theocracy when the Taliban first ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and since their reinstatement of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2021, Afghanistan is an Islamic theocracy again.

Israel describes itself as a Jewish state.[38] Israel recognizes by law[39] the Chief Rabinate of Israel as the supreme rabbinic authority for Judaism in Israel. Gail Page describes Israel as a "theocracy", a "country that has openly declared itself for a particular religious group".[40] On July 2019, the Israeli Knesset voted to pass the nation-state law which declares Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people;[38] Haidar Eid thus describes Israel as an ethno-religious state.[41]

Having a state religion is not sufficient enough to mean that a state is a theocracy in the narrow sense of the term. Many countries have a state religion without the government directly deriving its powers from a divine authority or a religious authority which is directly exercising governmental powers. Since few theocracies exist in the modern world, the word "theocracy" is now used as a descriptive term for a government which enforces a state religion.

The Shang dynasty essentially functioned as a theocracy, declaring the ruling family the sons of heaven and calling the chief sky god Shangdi after a word for their deceased ancestors.[58] After their overthrow by the Zhou, the royal clan of Shang were not eliminated but instead moved to a ceremonial capital where they were charged to continue the performance of their rituals.

The Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in 1860s Qing China was a heterodox Christian theocracy led by a person who said that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, Hong Xiuquan. This theocratic state fought one of the most destructive wars in history, the Taiping Rebellion, against the Qing dynasty for fifteen years before being crushed following the fall of the rebel capital Nanjing.

Jennifer Fretland VanVoorst argues, "the Byzantine Empire became a theocracy in the sense that Christian values and ideals were the foundation of the empire's political ideals and heavily entwined with its political goals".[60] Steven Runciman says in his book on The Byzantine Theocracy (2004):

After severe persecution, the Mormons left the United States and resettled in a remote part of what is now Utah, which was then part of Mexico. However the United States took control in 1848 and would not accept polygamy. The Mormon State of Deseret was short-lived.[71] Its original borders stretched from western Colorado to the southern California coast. When the Mormons arrived in the valley of the Great Salt Lake in 1847, the Great Basin was still a part of Mexico and had no secular government. As a result, Brigham Young administered the region both spiritually and temporally through the highly organized and centralized Melchizedek Priesthood. This original organization was based upon a concept called theodemocracy, a governmental system combining biblical theocracy with mid-19th-century American political ideals.[72][73]

The Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro was an ecclesiastical principality that existed from 1516 until 1852. The principality was located around modern-day Montenegro. It emerged from the Eparchy of Cetinje, later known as the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral, whose bishops defied the Ottoman Empire overlordship and transformed the parish of Cetinje into a de facto theocracy, ruling it as Metropolitans (Vladike, also known as prince-bishops). The first prince-bishop was Vavila. The system was transformed into a hereditary one by Danilo Šćepčević, a bishop of Cetinje who united the several tribes of Montenegro into fighting the Ottoman Empire that had occupied all of Montenegro (as the Sanjak of Montenegro and Montenegro Vilayet) and most of southeastern Europe at the time.

Beyond this rather dark picture for Israel, Ezekiel says the nations will also see from her the Living God as a God of mercy who is zealous for his holy name. When in his sovereignty he pours out his Spirit to restore his people from exile to live again securely in their own land (Ezek. 39:25-29), his glory will also be known. And it is here in restoration that the question of theocracy again becomes relevant for us. Why? Two thoughts.

The Hebrew nation provides us with the only example of a true theocracy . This people, whom God had made his inheritance, groaned for a long time under the tyranny of the Egyptians, when the eternal, remembering his promises, resolved to break their bonds and to put them in possession of the land that he had destined for them. He stirred up a prophet for their deliverance, to whom he communicated his will; this was Moses. God chose him to be the liberator of his people and to prescribe for them the laws of which he himself was the author. Moses was only the organ and the interpreter of the will of heaven, he was the minister of God, who had reserved for himself sovereignty over the Israelites; this prophet prescribed to them in his name the worship that they had to follow, and the laws that they had to observe.

Although the Israelites were the only people who provide for us the example of a true theocracy , we have nevertheless seen impostors, who, without having the mission of Moses, established over ignorant and captivated peoples an empire that they persuaded them was that of the Divinity. In this way, among the Arabs, Mohammed made himself the prophet, legislator, pontiff, and the sovereign of a crude and subjugated nation; the Koran contains all at once the dogmas, morals, and the civil laws of the Muslims. We know that Mohammed claimed to have received these laws from the mouth of God himself; this so-called theocracy lasted for many centuries under the caliphs, who were the sovereigns and the pontiffs of the Arabs. Among the Japanese, the power of the Dairi, or ecclesiastical emperor, resembled that of a theocracy , before the Cubo , or secular emperor had put boundaries on his authority. One finds vestiges of a similar empire among the ancient Gauls; the druids exercised the functions of priests and judges of the people. Among the Ethiopians and the Egyptians, priests ordered kings to give themselves over to death, when they had displeased the Divinity; in a word there is hardly a country where the priesthood has not made an effort to establish its authority over the souls and bodies of men.

Those were the pretensions and maxims of Gregory VII, Boniface VIII, and many other Roman pontiffs, who profiting from the superstitious stupidity of the people, armed them against their natural sovereigns, and covered Europe with carnage and horrors. It is over these bloody cadavers of many millions of Christians that the representatives of the God of peace raised the edifice of a chimerical power, of which men were for a long time sad toys and miserable victims. In general, history and experience prove to us that the priesthood always endeavors to introduce on the earth a type of theocracy ; priests only want to submit themselves to God, that invisible sovereign of nature, or to one from among themselves, whom they have chosen to represent the Divinity; they wanted to form in the estates a separate estate, independent from the civil power; they claimed to hold only from the Divinity the goods that men had obviously placed into their possession. It is left to the wisdom of sovereigns to repress these ambitious and idealistic pretentions, and to contain all members of society within the just boundaries that reason and the tranquility of the states prescribe.

Yemen is at crossroads between two possible futures: a theocracy dominated by the Houthis, or a modern state for all Yemenis. For now, unfortunately, the balance seems tilted towards the first outcome.

While tyranny of the majority may put democracy at risk, tyranny of the minority is no democracy at all. Americans rejected slavery and Americans rejected fascism. The current threat is more subtle, thus more insidious, and so it remains to be seen whether Americans will reject theocracy as well.

Progressives who think warnings about "theocracy" are an exaggeration should take a closer look at "Justice Sunday: Filibustering People of Faith," the Christian Right telethon headlined by Senate Majority Leader William Frist. Envision the carefully designed image that the far-right Family Research Council, the main organizer of the April 24 event, beamed into conservative churches across the country: a political rally from a large, comfortable mega-church in Louisville, with a middle-class audience listening with rapt attention to political operatives who self-identify as religious leaders-and at the bottom of the screen, streaming video with the photos, names and phone numbers of targeted U.S. senators. The visual message was clear: the church is dominant over the state and senators should toe the line on eliminating the filibuster and confirming Bush judges or pay the price. 041b061a72