Anonymous Asks (308)

“In a theocracy such as the Christian Nationalist movement would like to see established, what would be the most biblical way to treat people with non-Christian religious beliefs?”

I’m never a huge fan of hypotheticals, and this is a big one. Notwithstanding the efforts of our postmillennialist friends, I believe the next (pseudo-) theocracy we’re going to see on this planet will be global beast-worship, to be followed shortly by the glorious millennial kingdom of the Lord Jesus, who will not require my advice about how to administer justice.

Still, purely as a thought experiment, let’s give it a shot. Any hypothetical theocratic government Christians might envision would have to take its inspiration from the Law of Moses. The New Testament tells us a great deal about how to govern ourselves in our personal behavior, families and church life, but tells us nothing whatsoever about ideal government during the church age. We would have to look to the Old Testament to see what human government under the rule of God might look like.

Limited Freedom of Speech and Religion

Firstly, the Old Testament law mandated standards of behavior that applied to every individual living in Israel, regardless of his personal convictions. A sojourner from another nation was free to live among the people of God on the understanding that he had access to the protections and benefits provided by Israel’s law, but also was subject to the obligations created under it. He was entitled to his Sabbath rest just like every Israelite, but he was not free to break the Sabbath just because he was not an Israelite.

A hypothetical Christian theocracy, then, would grant certain freedoms and protections to non-Christians, but these would come with restrictions. For example, Israel had blasphemy laws that applied to native and sojourner alike. Therefore, a Christian nation operating on biblical principles would grant only limited freedom of speech. Non-Christians would not be free to worship other gods within the borders of a Christian nation. There would be no public celebration of pagan holidays and no mosques, temples, synagogues or gathering centers for the dissemination of alternative religious viewpoints.

Limited Participation in Government

Secondly, Deuteronomy set lifetime limitations on participation in public life by eunuchs (most of whom were practitioners of foreign religions), sojourners from certain nations and children of forbidden unions. Under the Law of Moses, some people simply were not allowed to make decisions affecting the nation in which they chose to live. In the case of immigrants, these applied to their children and grandchildren as well. In a democratic theocracy, therefore, I would be disinclined to allow participation in government by unbelievers. Believe me, they will be better off than in other nations even without representation in government.

The nation of Israel welcomed Ruth and Rahab, but both were converts, not just immigrants. Rahab betrayed her own people to join Israel, and Ruth famously told her mother-in-law, “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” Unbelief, or the private belief in other gods, would not disqualify a man from living peacefully in a Christian theocracy and enjoying his civil rights like anyone else, but they would disqualify him from voting or running for office.

Freedom of Conscience

Finally, freedom of conscience is an important biblical principle. It was not enshrined in Israel’s law, which was mostly concerned with governing behavior rather than the thought life, but Christians who believe God not only permits but requires men to choose good over evil and life over death ought to be reluctant to try to police the thought lives of others.

There is an apparent tension between the principle of freedom of conscience and the prophetic word about the millennial reign of Christ. Zechariah 14 indicates that foreign nations will be subject to compelled worship during the millennium, afflicted with plague and famine if they do not go up to Jerusalem annually to worship the King. This apparent tension is resolved if we recognize that faith will not be a requirement during the millennial reign. It will not even be possible, since Christ will be visible and present. Thus, obligatory expressions of public worship during the millennium will not be an unreasonable requirement.

However, I would be very reluctant to impose that sort of positive obligation to worship on unbelievers during the present age when the Lord has plainly stated that he prizes faith and despises acts of worship that are less than genuine. Absent the irrefutable presence of the Lord, I would not want to compel atheists, agnostics and people of other religions to pretend-worship.