On the Scripturally defensible issue, this is not Israel and we are not under the Law of Moses. Jesus explicitly eschewed political power, saying that his Kingdom was not of this world. Paul in Romans 13 did say that the civil magistrate is the minister of God, but which civil magistrate was he referring to? Nero! In Timothy Paul exhorts us to pray for kings and for all that are in authority that we might lead quiet and peaceable lives. In sum, I see nothing in the New Testament that suggests that Christians are to try to control civil government. The New Testament recognizes, if not explicitly then at least by implication, that in this age governing would largely be the purview of the pagans. You will search the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation in vain in an attempt to find a passage anywhere in which Christians were told to try to seize the reins of power in Rome (or even Jerusalem).
On a more practical level, there are a number of reasons why America isn't and can't be a theocracy:
1. While evangelical Christians form a substantial minority of the population, America's population is in no way a Christian population. What makes you think __your__ theocracy would be the one that ultimately prevailed?
2. That rigid wall of separation between church and state that many evangelicals decry has in fact kept us from the sectarian violence that characterizes other countries that mix church and state. Personally, I have no real interest in living in Northern Ireland, Iran or Pakistan. And even nominally Christian European nations like France and Germany that have official state churches without sectarian violence have churches that don't try to get involved in politics -- they take their taxpayer money and keep quiet about matters of state.
3. In America, religion thrives in part because of separation of church and state. Again, I would cite Western Europe: In England, France and Germany, all of which have state churches, approximately 3% of the population is regular churchgoers. In America, with a wall of separation, the population of regular churchgoers is about 60%. These results speak for themselves.
4. Churches, like other institutions, are run by fallible humans, and power tends to corrupt. Again, Europe provides the example: The corruption that inevitably comes from mixing church and state ultimately led Martin Luther to condemn both institutions and start a Reformation.
5. Finally, our Constitution forbids it. I realize the Constitution is not always perfect and it can be changed, but for Reasons 1-4 above I think this particular change would be a bad idea.
On a more practical level, there are a number of reasons why America isn't and can't be a theocracy:
1. While evangelical Christians form a substantial minority of the population, America's population is in no way a Christian population. What makes you think __your__ theocracy would be the one that ultimately prevailed?
2. That rigid wall of separation between church and state that many evangelicals decry has in fact kept us from the sectarian violence that characterizes other countries that mix church and state. Personally, I have no real interest in living in Northern Ireland, Iran or Pakistan. And even nominally Christian European nations like France and Germany that have official state churches without sectarian violence have churches that don't try to get involved in politics -- they take their taxpayer money and keep quiet about matters of state.
3. In America, religion thrives in part because of separation of church and state. Again, I would cite Western Europe: In England, France and Germany, all of which have state churches, approximately 3% of the population is regular churchgoers. In America, with a wall of separation, the population of regular churchgoers is about 60%. These results speak for themselves.
4. Churches, like other institutions, are run by fallible humans, and power tends to corrupt. Again, Europe provides the example: The corruption that inevitably comes from mixing church and state ultimately led Martin Luther to condemn both institutions and start a Reformation.
5. Finally, our Constitution forbids it. I realize the Constitution is not always perfect and it can be changed, but for Reasons 1-4 above I think this particular change would be a bad idea.
