Theocracy or Democracy?

"Respecting the Full and Equal Rights of Conscience"

James Madison, United States President 1809-1817

In the 80s and early 90s, Jeanne was the United Methodist campus minister at James Madison University. In a meeting with other campus ministers, she heard her Lutheran (ELCA)  colleague say that he wished we would stop using “Christian” as an adjective. He wanted everyone to refrain from calling books, music, films, bookstores, and schools “Christian,” saying that the word should be used only for persons who try to follow the teachings of Jesus.  Here’s Jeanne’s current reflection on that concept. nps

That was a new and interesting idea to me, though not always practical. I think I know what was bothering him. Like me, he represented a denomination that has a unique theological and liturgical tradition. His dates back to the 16th century in Germany and mine to the 18th century in England, and both denominations have historic connections to Roman Catholicism and to the early church. Neither of us was trying to proselytize anyone. We were there to support students and faculty in their spiritual, intellectual, and social growth; to teach about our unique traditions to those who wanted to learn; to provide pastoral care to anyone who wanted a chaplain. We respected each other’s traditions, we respected the intellectual life of the academic community, and we understood that doubt and questioning often contribute to spiritual growth.   

At JMU there were also leaders of parachurch campus ministries—mostly young adults, just out of college, with no academic background in religious studies or theology or church history and no acquaintance with any religious tradition beyond evangelicalism and even no recognition that there are differences within evangelicalism. They tended to be literalists in Bible study and suspicious of denominational campus ministries. They were quick to use “Christian” as an adjective applied to music, books, films and dating behavior.  Hence my colleague’s wish to strike the adjective “Christian” from acceptable usage. One problem with calling  things and entities, including nations,  Christian is that there are many traditions of Christianity with vastly different Biblical interpretations, theologies and practices.(Especially since the rise of the Christian right, I wish that more journalists would recognize that fact.)  Another problem is the labeling of violent acts and speech as Christian when the perpertrators believe they have a righteous cause.  

I haven’t seen my Lutheran colleague since 1992, but I’ll just bet that he still feels the same way about using “Christian” to modify “nation.” You see, we both come from traditions that believe church and state should remain separate. That is the official position of what have been called mainline denominations (though not necessarily of all people in the pews). Christian nationalism merges church and state in a that privileges a particular Christian belief system. It has been defined in different ways. Katherine Stewart, author of The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism writes,

 . .  .because Christian nationalism is identified (or, more accurately, because it identifies itself) with a religion, the movement is often understood as a set of religious and/or theological positions.” But, she emphasizes, “Christian nationalism is, first and foremost, a political movement. Its principal goal, and the goal of its most active leaders, is power. 

The fear of those of us that don’t hold this view is that Christian nationalism does not honor the religious diversity of the United States and seeks to impose its values on everyone. We don’t want to see our country governed by theocratic authoritarianism   

The religious diversity in the U.S. is greater than it's ever been before. In 1972, when the Pew Research Center began asking Americans, “What is your religious preference?” 90% identified as Christian and 5% were religiously unaffiliated. Pew’s 2022 survey shows that the unaffiliated has grown to 29% and the percentage of those identifying as Christian has decreased to  63%.

Recent polling from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) shows the following diversity:  Unaffiliated, 23%; White mainline (non-evangelical Protestant,16%; White evangelical Protestant 14%; White Catholic 12%, Other Protestant of color 8%, Black Protestant, 7%; Hispanic Protestant. 4%; Other Catholic of color, 2%, Don’t know; refused, 2%; Latter-day Saints (Mormons),1%; Orthodox Christian, .5%: Jehovah’s Witnesses,1%; Jewish,1%; Muslim,1%; Buddhist,1%; Hindu, .5%; Unitarian/Universalist, .5%, Other religion,1 .1%. 

As Diana Butler Bass indicates in a 2023 Substack essay, Christians make up 88% of voting members of the 118th Congress. Thirty-four Democrats identify as either “non-denominational Protestant or “unspecified/other Protestants.  Seventy-seven Republicans do. Together, the “non-denominational” and “unspecified Protestants” (largely evangelical) make up nearly 40% of Congress. That means that many Christian members of Congress are less likely to be aware of centuries of debates about church and state by political theologians and Christian ethicists and more likely to be aware of the opinions well-known pastors and popular religious movement, especially those of the religious right who are proponents of merging church and state into a theocracy and more.  

Theocracy is a seductive notion. What’s wrong with a government that recognizes God as the ultimate authority? The problem is with the intermediaries of the divine: God doesn’t rule in theocracies — those who claim to speak for God are the ones who rule. Theoretically, if theocrats are concerned with the common good, theocracy can have benefits—ethical guidance and social cohesion. But it’s a slippery slope from theocracy into an autocracy when arrogance and lust for power take over and theocrats  presume to tell people how God wants them to think and vote. 

If Project 2025, an initiative organized by the Heritage Foundation and endorsed by a number of Christian Nationalists organizations, is enacted with the election of Donald Trump, it will be devastating to democracy as we know it. It would move the Justice Department, including the FBI, under direct presidential control and substantially weaken the independence of federal law enforcement agencies. It would  dismantle the Department of Education. It would restrict voting rights, weaken climate change protection, portray Medicare and Social Security as “socialism,” deny the validity of science, and more.   

Democracies at their best produce adults willing to deal with the complexities of modern life. Autocratic theocracies keep people as children who can’t be trusted to think for themselves. The bottom line is that extreme Christian nationalists are happy to see our present system of government crumble. The sooner and more completely Washington fails, the nearer our country will be to entering their dream of a “post-democracy” future.

Perhaps it is time to recall the words of James Madison in his speech to Congress in May of 1789 proposing the 1st amendment to the constitution: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief of worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

The genius of democracy is that it builds on our diversity.

---

Connections

Read more about the fourth President of the United States and religious freedom at James Madison’s Montpelier.

In her essay “Christian Nationalism Everywhere?” historian of religion Diana Butler Bass reflects on the idea of a “Christian Nation.”

Vibrations

Noel’s “How Can I Keep From Singing?” is a hymn/folk song that has given hope to generation after generation in their quest to preserve freedom. 

Resonance

What is your number one concern about the future of our democracy?