On Theocracy and Redemption
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. On the Sixth day Adam was created. Adam and Eve were given dominion over the earth, ruling over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky. Then they sinned. The very ground was cursed because of their sin and they and were cast out of the Garden. Yet their dominion over the earth, while marred with toil, was never rescinded. They also gained the knowledge of good and evil: their fall from innocence removed their ability to use ignorance as an excuse.
As humanity spread and grew, the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually. God chose to punish humanity for the evil they were committing and he chose also to punish the earth; Man's dominion over the earth made the earth culpable in the evil. The entire world, not just Man, was ruined in the flood. All nature was to suffer the punishment for sin.
God spared Noah, the lone righteous man, as well as his family. Alongside Noah, God also spared a subset of nature; two of each kind of beast.
After the flood, God promised that he would never again destroy the earth because of Man, sundering the dominion humanity had over the earth. God saw Man's predilection for evil and no longer made nature responsible for Man's sin. The covenant that God made to Noah was a diminishment of Man's responsibility even as it guaranteed that there would never again be wholesale destruction of nature or Man. As a symbol of this sundering, Man was now allowed to eat meat. All nature would now fear Man.
This condemnation and redemption of those who are under dominion is continued in the New Testament. In Acts, entire families would be converted if the head of the household converted. In the Letter to the Corinthians, unbelieving spouses could be sanctified by their believing counterpart. In what way or in what circumstances are those who are ruled liable for the actions of their liege?
In today's West we recoil at the thought of being responsible for someone else's choices. It is considered a diminishment of agency to be required to convert if your head of house, or your head of state, converted to a different religion. The concept of being saved through the belief of a close family member is also deeply uncomfortable. Yet it appears that the entirety of nature was either redeemed or condemned based on the actions of those who had dominion over it.
As an aside, we still do have strong undercurrents of collective guilt, typically along the dimensions of race or gender. In this case it is our ancestors or our position in society that determines the depth of our sin. Yet despite corporate guilt, only individuals can overcome this iniquity; there is no corporal redemption.
Throughout the Middle Ages it was expected that the vassals would adopt the religion and conversions of their sovereign. There was no such thing as an agnostic government: indeed, the very authority of the government came from divine right. When Henry VIII converted to protestantism, England became a protestant country. I think there is a sense in which this framework is at least compatible with the Bible. I don't presume to know in what manner a converted sovereign could redeem his country, but if all of nature could be punished for Man's sin, it certainly seems plausible that a sovereign's subjects could be redeemed through his virtue.
Hence in light of eternity, it seems optimal for countries to be theocracies, or at least have a government that believes its authority is divinely granted, and thus is in turn subject to a higher authority; and who bears the responsibility not only for their own beliefs but for the beliefs of their subjects. Yet I see two clear downsides to such an arrangement.
First, it requires the sovereign to truly believe that they are subject to the divine; otherwise they will manipulate the genuine faith of their subjects to horrible ends. Historically, the evidence is that rulers tend towards skepticism and machiavellianism rather than caretakers and redeemers of their people. When this happens, society breaks down. By the time of Nietzsche and Marx, the ruling class in historical theocracies had long since abandoned their faith. The great Leviathans of the 20th century were the natural consequence of humanity unfettered and unmoored, with power the only constraint.
Second, the elevation of the Church to a position of political authority tends to corrupt the Church. There is a reason to render to Caesar's what is Caesar's; and to God's what is God's. A state church benefits the state far more than it benefits the church.
In short, a theocracy is the most optimal form of government. It aligns most with reality, it guides and focuses the populace with a common purpose, and possibly leads to nationwide salvation. Yet it is the most unstable of positions; a marble placed on the top of a cone. Until Jesus returns to reign forever as the perfect sovereign and priest, we are doomed to hedonism, corruption, vapidity, superficiality, despotism, dissipation, manipulation, coercion, and deception.