Craige McMillan is a longtime commentator for WND.
Few things inflame leftist passions like talk of a theocracy. So let’s have a little. The American Heritage Dictionary offers these definitions:
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.
Pretty good, but the Random House College Edition adds this extra bit: “A system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.”
Man’s first recorded brush with theocracy seems to have been in the Garden of Eden: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17 KJV).
Genesis chapter 3 records that man’s brush with this first theocracy didn’t turn out well for any involved. Note also that God had no problem doing what needed to be done to protect his creation, including man.
Perhaps as a result of this, early Israel didn’t have kings; they had judges. The judges mediated disputes brought before them (in other words, try to work it out yourself, first).
Celebrity-worship occurred even back then, however. Dazzled by the pomp and circumstance of surrounding nations and their monarchs, Israel soon began asking God for a king. God told them that was his job, but they were caught up in the pomp and circumstance and asked all the more. God finally relented, telling Israel they wouldn’t like the result. They didn’t. (Much later, Lord Acton put it in a nutshell: “Power corrupts.”)
Power and corruption brings us to current America. About 1215, our English forebears lost their appetite for kings. Property owners and legislators united against a weakened monarch and placed him under the law, forcing him to sign the Magna Carta.
Rex Lex, “the king is the law” became Lex Rex, “law is king.” It waited until 1644 when Samuel Rutherford, a Presbyterian minister, popularized the concept in his book, “Lex, Rex.”
America was given a unique constitution in 1787, by men wise beyond their years. (One shudders to think what a constitution written today would look like.) The final draft took into account the lessons of history to craft a government of law, which divided the intrinsic corruption of men among three separate (yet equal) branches of government. Oh, in addition to pitting against one another the egos of men who would seek authority over their friends and neighbors, the founders also limited the federal government’s income to a pittance, lest it get out of hand and be filled with bureaucrats eating up the nation’s substance.
America, after all, already had a king. “No king but Jesus,” was heard frequently during the Revolutionary War against England.
Today there are several competing theocracies in the works that men are striving to implement in the world. Perhaps the most visible is Islamic law. Ah, but what to do with all the severed hands, feet and heads of those who run afoul of the law?
Secular humanism is more popular in the West. It was ruled a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961. But even before then, humanism (man is the measure of all things) had asserted itself through a series of rulers as one of the most violent, corrupt and lawless forms of government imaginable. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and even Castro ran governments of the rulers, by the rulers, and for the rulers. The common man’s job was to pay for it all. Dissent was punishable by death. Sixty million, and still counting.
America seems to be on track to “progress” backwards in history to one of these “enlightened” leadership examples. Since secular humanism has no deity (at least none they would recognize), that leaves the high priests of secular humanism to speak for the divine right of their non-deity to rule over the rest of us. And they speak to us regularly from the temples of their assemblages: The United Nations, the European Union, the elitist media and now the White House in Washington, D.C.
Sometimes it is worth reviewing comments left by the left on opinion pieces questioning their divine right to power over the rest of us, because in our nation law is still king.
Notice that Islam, a competing theocracy, provokes no outrage among the secular humanists busily building their new world empire. Even feminists turn a blind eye to honor killings by the parents of young women (perhaps they view these as belated abortions?).
An enlightened leftist might ask why this is, but then self-doubt has never been a distinguishing quality of the left. Communism, for instance, has failed everywhere it has been tried (most recently in Cuba), but the true believers still insist that with more money, more time and more dead dissenters upon which to build a better foundation, it could still be a success.
The world’s final attempt at theocracy is now beginning to take shape. From the self-inflicted death-throes of the West and the secular humanism of its elites will emerge the man with all the answers. For the world, there will be no turning back from this fateful decision.