I’m involved in an area that is presided over by monarchy, and I would like to know how to practically bring in a theocracy. After a monarchy has been established, how do you go back to theocracy?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘The Problems of Becoming and Being a King’ (1990).

You say that in your part of the world the church has gone over to monarchy instead of keeping to theocracy, if I've got you right. And what ought we to do? I think in answering that question I want to say that first of all we always have to go very carefully if we draw lessons from Old Testament to New, because Israel was a religious people under a priesthood, and they were also a political nation. It was at that political level that we talked about there being a theocracy. If you come to the church, as I understand it the church is not a political institution; it is a spiritual one. It is only by analogy therefore that we would talk about 'the government' of the church, and say that the government of the church should be a theocracy. Yes, I grant you that immediately.

If people have departed from that pattern in the government of the church, what should we do? Well I would draw a contrast between the church and Israel. When Israel demanded a political monarchy, God agreed, and God had Saul anointed, and God had David anointed, and so forth, as political men. Saul and David never were priests in the tabernacle. If it is true, and I know what you mean, that in Christendom instead of being happy to remain, so to speak, as theocracies in direct responsibility to the Lord, they have added institutions of Church government that are not countenanced in the New Testament, then I would want to say the first step is to ask what authority they have for introducing these systems. A monarchical bishop, for instance, was an invention of the late first, or perhaps early second, century. Have they any biblical authority for it? Has God ever anointed any of these men as monarchical bishops? That is what I would want to ask.

Some people would reply, 'Oh yes, Timothy was an incipient, embryonic, monarchical bishop.' But the case could be disputed, couldn't it? I would want to say therefore, that there is a very big contrast here: Saul was anointed; God agreed with the system and went with it. So was David. I would myself take a bit of convincing that God himself anointed the first monarchical bishop, and he had authority to anoint all others after him. And if he doesn't have authority from God to do it, then I would say that our obedience to the Lord must make us stick to what God has authorized. And I would want to say that it is not, therefore, schismatic if we say we must be free to obey Scripture. We are not being schismatic, if in our hearts we retain love for all God's people.