Monday
Oct292007
Who Said That?
Monday, October 29, 2007 at 08:01AM 
Who Said That?
"Right now the United States is in many ways a theocratic state, not dissimilar to some of the other religious states in the world where religion has a huge part to play in government."
You know the drill! Please, no google searches, or cheating. Leave your guess in the comments section below.
Update on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 06:47PM by
Kim Riddlebarger
Kim Riddlebarger
These words come from Canada's former ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna. I'll bet our theonomist friends would be surprised to learn that a theonomic state already exists. I guess Canada has fallen so far that the presence of any Christians in government is taken as "proof" of a theocracy.
Reader Comments (26)
Zrim
Absolutely, the USA is certainly a theocracy:
we are outlawing abortion, outlawing no-fault divorce, places of business are being forced to shut down on Sunday's as the ENTIRE country again recognizes Sunday is the Lord's Day!
Yes, sir, every where you look the Ten Commandments are being enforced in full force!
Just last week every political candidate was quoting from God's Law informing voting citizens that if he or Hillary were elected, God's Holy Word, the Bible would be their constitution!
Yep, that's the theocracy we all love...
The USA!
Zrim
no theonomist here...
clearly it was all sarcasm to show the idiocy of such a statement.
Answer a fool according to his own folly,
you know?
The genius of an unspoken theocracy is the silent part. Theocracy can exist even where all of your particular ideas of a “godly” society looks like don’t.
For better or worse, your sarcasm leads me to believe that you actually want to see manifestations of what you would consider theocratic law. But somewhere out there another Evangelical is balking at the statement as well because more money is spent on war-making than education, or the illiteracy rates are gaining speed, or we are turning back the “aliens within our gates.” While you both may think you are balking at the prejudice of a boogey-man atheist, I wonder if it really betrays that you both actually believe Christianity is useful for statecraft, aka, “relevant to the felt needs” of building the LHK. But as for this Christian secularist, an unspoken theocracy is actually worse than a spoken one. Whatever else is learned from a covenant theology, implication is the most persuasive way of communicating.
Zrim
Would that be the same Jimmy Carter who has openly stated that he belives:
a. Mormons are Christians
b. Also stated Salvation can be found outside of Jesus Christ
c. And this year suggested we should not judge one another actually quoting Mt. 7:1 believing everyone is going to be saved.
Jimmy Carter is enlightening isn't he?
And to think I have read Mt. 7 many times, but had never before noticed that Jesus in Mt. 7 was declaring a "Universalism".
Thanks former president Carter!
My fellow brother in Christ, Zrim.
I certainly agree with your observation of this worldview present today in the evangelical church.
However, be careful. It was premature for you to say what my post betrays about me. You don't know me. Furthermore, the things posted were so outrageously sarcastic you should have recognized it.
Most significantly, Zrim, you could have simply asked, and then I could have told you I do not view God or Jesus Christ as useful for the morality of the USA or either political party.
I am only doing what people do in the world of reading and writing: inferring and implying. This has nothing to do with magically discerning a whole person; I don't know what knowing another person has to do with this exchange since it is impossible and doesn't solve the problems of reading and writing or even audible speech. Indeed, your comment on the quote itself seems to betray that you are doing some level of interpretation on something said, etc. Did you know this person? If you can interpret something said by someone why can't I do that with you?
I thought my tongue-in-cheek comment sort of implied that I got your outrageous sarcasm.
People usually know the right answer to direct questions, so it is usually a useless approach. Ask a FVer if he thinks salvation is by faith alone and he will say yes. Even the Finneyian revivalists know to say "yes" when asked if God saves sinners. I wonder if Jacob Arminius ever complained that Gomarus just didn't know him. The whole debate was over what was said or written, after all.
Anyway, let me then ask you directly: what was the sarcasm for then? Was it not meant to say that there is only one form of theocracy, the embodied kind, and that when that isn't in place then it doesn't exist?
Zrim
But I can't resist responding to it.
Sure, religion plays a role in our culture, and our government is a reflection of that culture. Unfortunately, the "God" who is worshiped by most in our culture isn't the God of Scripture. The "God" worshiped in our culture is really the sovereign self.
And I just know this will ruffle some feathers: this is what democracy inherently is. It eventually leads to the belief not in the divine right of kings, but in the divine right of the people to rule, eventually leading to the anarchist mindset: no one can tell me what to do. Plato did get at least this right, though he got so much else wrong.
If anything, our individualistic culture - which began in the church, by the way, thanks Johnny Edwards! - very naturally coincides with our government. They build upon one another.
Help me out then. What is the point of the post? And, remember, no fair using any sense of inference or implication. Is it really to only guess who said that, or are there implications that can be made once the answer is lavished upon us?
My only point is to wonder aloud about silent and embodied theocracy. Ivan seems to think charges of theocracy may only be made when it is embodied, and only then in certain ways. I guess it piques my interest when someone says something I agree with and another wants to label it as a sort of “atheistic conspiracy against Christians.” Calvin said we go to our deathbed with an unbeliever inside us; but just because someone is hellbound doesn’t mean he’s not right about a few things. At least, my inner unbeliever seems to understand more than I tend to give him credit for.
(Contrarian? That is always such an odd thing to hear, but, then again, I don’t understand most neo-con thinking. I have no desire to be contrarian for its own sake. I am just asking questions out of curiosity. It's also a weird charge when there is so much I also hoo-rah.)
Zrim
So I'll offer a second guess:
Was it Zrim?
Sorry, sometimes, I can't help myself!!!
:)
Hey! I already made that joke on my original guess! No fair re-joking.
Sorry, most times I can't help myself either...
Happy Halloween, all.
Zrim