
Theocracy and Speaking Truth to Power
Prophetic words to the powers that be:
The word “theocracy” simply means rule or government by God. That of course does not sit well with most moderns. ‘Who is HE to rule over us?!’ they will shout. Of course such a mindset is not new. Jesus used the parable of the Ten Minas to refer to how the crowds would reject him. As we read in Luke 19:12-14:
“A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us’.”
And it certainly happened that way as Jesus stood before Pilate, who wanted to free him:
But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”— a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” A third time he said to them, “Why? What evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.” But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will. (Luke 23:18-25)
So the idea of God ruling over us has long been rejected by mere men. It started in fact from Day One when Adam and Eve refused God’s rightful authority. So we instead have ended up with other forms of government or rule. It could be a Prince or a King or a small group or some family dynasty, and so on.
Most of them are now quite secular. As I wrote a decade ago, we must be willing to challenge them:
There ARE such things as secular theocracies. That is because at bottom everyone is a theist. Sure, they may not be Hindus or Jews or Christians or Muslims. They may be secular to the core. But they are still theists. That is because everyone has a god that they worship.
If it is not the one true God, it is a god of their own choosing. It may be fame or fortune that they worship. It may be themselves – that may be the most common god being served today. And plenty of ‘secular’ political and ideological isms can become objects of worship as well.
Thus societies and cultures are all at bottom religious. One of the great lines from Douglas Wilson (and he has many) came from an essay he penned a decade ago. He was responding to another believer who said “I sure don’t want to live in a theocracy.” Wilson replied:
“But if we are talking about lifestyle, and if lifestyle refers to something more than a personal consumption item, at some point we are going to have to enact laws. Culture is impossible without them. But cultures differ because they serve different gods, and different gods require different things. This means the laws are different. Every society is a theocracy. The only question is, ‘Who’s Theo?’”
Yep, every culture is a theocracy and we need to ask who is god in that culture. In the West the primary god of this age can be called by various names: secular leftism, secular liberalism, secular humanism. This is the reigning worldview amongst the intelligentsia, the media, the academy, and so on. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/11/28/challenging-secular-theocracies/
All forms of government must be held to account because the biblical witness declares that they are all finite, flawed and fallible. There must be voices that speak to these rulers, keeping them in check. They have to be reminded of eternal truths.
In this regard, we can discuss ancient Israel. Was it a theocracy? If we take a standard definition, such as that from Britannica, then we could say yes: “A theocracy is a form of government in which a supreme deity is recognized as the ultimate authority, and civil laws are based on religious texts and interpreted by religious leaders or clergy.”
However, we must qualify this somewhat. The truth is, there were checks and balances in place, and there was a division of powers. This was mainly achieved because of the fact that there existed three important offices: that of prophet, priest and king. Therefore bad kings were sometimes called out by prophets and priests. Or priests could resist false prophets, and so on.
So we find that there are many examples in Scripture of God’s people speaking truth to power – be they godly rulers or pagan rulers. I have put together a handy list of just 22 examples of this, but there would be many more:
-Moses To Pharaoh – Exodus 4:21-23
-Samuel to King Saul – 1 Samuel 13:13-14
-Nathan to King David – 2 Samuel 12:1-15
-Elijah to Ahab – 1 Kings 18:17-18
-Elisha to Ben-hadad king of Syria – 2 Kings 8:7-15
-Jehu to King Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 19:1-2
-Isaiah to Israel’s irresponsible leaders – Isaiah 56:9-12
-Jeremiah to the king of Judah – Jeremiah 22:1-5
-Daniel to King Nebuchadnezzar – Daniel 4:27
-Jonah to Nineveh – Jonah 1:1-2
-John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees – Matthew 3:7-10
-John the Baptist to Herod – Matthew 14:1-5
-Jesus to the Pharisees – Matthew 23:29-31
-John the Baptist to the crowds – Luke 3:7-9
-John the Baptist to Herod – Luke 3:19-20
-Jesus to Herod – Luke 13:31-32
-Jesus to the world – John 7:7
-Jesus to Pilate – John 19:10-11
-Peter to Simon the wizard – Acts 8:20-22
-Paul to Elymas the magician – Acts 13:8-11
-Paul to Ananias the high priest – Acts 23:3
-Paul to Peter – Galatians 2:11-14
We see in this list that in both Testaments there were prophetic voices that spoke to the rulers or the masses, sharing God’s truth and warning of judgment to come when needed. So even an Israelite king or some other big cheese was not above the law – the law of God. When rulers, princes, kings and others broke the laws of God, they were called out for it.
We certainly need these prophetic voices in every generation. And thankfully there have been many such people over the centuries. Some have been Christians, and some non-Christians. Here is a list of a dozen of these brave voices from more recent times that come to mind – they all are known for speaking truth to power:
-American patriots challenged the ruling Brits
-William Wilberforce confronted the slave trade industry
-Frederick Douglass withstood American slavery
-William and Catherine Booth challenged deepest, darkest England
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer confronted Hitler and the Nazis
-Hans and Sophie Scholl resisted the Nazis
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn challenged the Soviet Communist regime
-Martin Luther King Jr. confronted racism in America
-Lech Walesa stood against the Communists in Poland
-Vaclav Havel resisted the Soviets in Czechoslovakia
-Nick Shirley exposes government fraud and corruption
-J. K. Rowling standing against the powerful trans lobby
May God raise up many more such heroes. They are certainly needed today.
[1223 words]
Hi Bill, haven’t seen you on FB for quite a while, good to see you are still keeping a watch on the culture redefining elements of our society.
Bless you. I hope all is well with you.
Blessings
Many thanks Costa. Some months ago I was permanently kicked me off Fakebook. So I am now on X (Twitter) and am quite active there. Why not come and join me there? Bless you.
Interesting to compare Wilson’s view with Augistine. They are quite different if AI is to be believed:
1. The Definitional Division: Spiritual vs. Geopolitical
• Augustine’s View: In The City of God, Augustine argues that history is a tale of two invisible, intermingled cities defined strictly by what they love: the City of God (those who love God to the contempt of self) and the City of Man (those who love self to the contempt of God). For Augustine, these are spiritual realities. No physical nation, political empire, or earthly city can ever truly be the “City of God”. Earthly states belong firmly to the City of Man; at their best, they provide basic outward order and temporal peace, but they are inherently flawed and transitory.
• Wilson’s View: Wilson applies a much more geopolitical and legal framework to his theology. He argues that a nation can and should legally align its constitution with the lordship of Christ. While Augustine viewed empires as inherently compromised structures (“gangs of criminals on a large scale” without basic justice), Wilson explicitly envisions a physical, legal system where biblical law dictates civil penalties, restricted voting, and restricted public office
2. Radical Postmillennialism vs. Pilgrim Amillennialism
• Augustine’s View: Augustine wrote The City of God after the sack of Rome in 410 AD to comfort Christians. His message was that the fall of Rome did not mean the fall of Christ’s kingdom, because Christians are merely pilgrims in a foreign land. Augustine did not believe the world would gradually become a Christian utopia; he believed the two cities would remain completely entangled, conflict-ridden, and messy until Christ physically returns to separate them at the Final Judgment.
• Wilson’s View: Wilson rejects this “pilgrim” pessimism in favor of Postmillennialism. He explicitly believes that through Christian education, evangelism, and cultural dominance, the Church will successfully convert and culturally reform the nations before Jesus returns. Wilson’s 250-year strategy to conquer public space for Christ relies on an optimistic view of earthly institutional transformation that Augustine’s theology explicitly sought to discourage.
3. The Source and Use of the Law
• Augustine’s View: Augustine believed the civil magistrate’s role was fundamentally limited to keeping a basic, temporal peace utilizing common, secular human reasoning and basic natural justice. He did not believe that secular rulers should try to force the internal spiritual purity of the City of God onto the citizens of the City of Man through the penal code.
• Wilson’s View: Wilson is a theonomist, meaning he argues that modern civil courts are explicitly bound to enforce the moral and civil standards of the Old Testament law (the “two tables of the law”). Under Wilson’s model, the state actively uses special revelation (the Bible) to govern, enforcing laws against sins like sodomy and adultery. Augustine’s framework separated these spheres far more sharply, viewing the state as incompetent to bring about spiritual righteousness.
I asked about Aquinas and CS Lewis as well and they both seem much closer to Augustine. I really don’t see any basis for a physical kingdom of laws in the gospels or the NT at all.
Thanks Damien. A few quick replies:
-Wilson, eschatology and things like Christian reconstructionism were of course NOT what this article was about.
-When I quote someone that does not mean I agree with everything they have ever said, and I feel no need to defend Wilson in all things.
-What Wilson said in the brief quote I shared about all cultures being theocracies so we must discern who or what their Theo is happens to be 100% correct.
-Those who want to debate Wilson should actually do so based on a careful reading of his many books and articles, not on one short quote from him.
-And no, AI is NOT to be believed, so we should not rely on it. Far better instead to actually read the person in question to discover what they do believe.
-For those wanting to know about some of his beliefs, these lengthier quotes from just two of his books give us a feel for what he does in fact think about some of these matters: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2026/08/24/doug-wilson-on-mere-christendom/
-And this: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2026/02/12/wilson-and-mere-christendom/
-Anyone who actually reads these two books, or even just reads some of my quotes from them, will see how wrong AI can be about him and his views.
We know Augustine was influenced in his younger life by gnosticism and Eastern philosophies and once you understand that you can often see the yin/yang influence in his thinking and why he often viewed the world as two parts.
Scripture is clear that wicked men will get worse but also that of the increase of the kingdom there will be no end. Things are actually vastly more complex and legally constrained (Satan is the legal accuser) than simply just two spiritual influences even though that is obviously how salvation must be divided.
Men are both made in God’s image and are deceived by evil but each person has their own spirit and so must be individually judged.
Sorry I got sidetracked but yes another excellent article. Thanks again.