Contrary to popular belief, employing a biblical world view for disciplines outside of personal faith, such as politics, art, child-raising, or science, is not using religion. There is a difference between employing biblical principle and employing religious principle, i.e. not all biblical principles should be considered strictly religious.
For example, the principles behind workfare (as opposed to welfare) are that people should be expected to contribute, not just receive and endless handout – the biblical principle here comes from the scripture “if a man is unwilling to work, neither let him eat (for free)”
Biblical principles of govt include:
- Limited Powers: Civil Government has limited powers, and should not usurp the responsibilities of the individual, family, church or civic group, or business entity. For example, as leader of my Family Government (or co-leader if you like), it is my responsibility to feed my kids. It is not the governments. If I abdicate, the government or other organization that helps me should have as its goal to help me re-assume my responsibility. All of this is considered biblical principle.
Other principles, outlined at Frontline.org, include:
- A written constitution (or Covenant)
- Balance of powers between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches (Isaiah 9:6-7, 33:22)
- Principles for a fair trial (innocent until proven guilty, due process, witnesses personally confront accused, impartial judges)
- Free market economy based on property ownership
- Education system controlled by parents, independent of the state (oops, we missed that one)
Here are some more http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/cul_bible.html
- God as the supreme authority and law giver (see mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration etc)
- Moral absolutes, from the creator (unalienable rights, self-evident truths)
- Sanctity of life
- Servanthood, not political power (hence “Public Servant”)
- Restitution
There is a difference between employing biblical principle and employing religious principle, i.e. not all biblical principles should be considered strictly religious.
In other words, there are biblical principles for which one can also advance reasonable non-religious arguments.
There are two modes of objecting to theocracy. The weak version argues that people shouldn't advance policies for which there is no reasonable non-religious argument. A law that says everyone should pray to Jesus in the morning, for instance, would clearly run afoul of this, and we'd recognize it as an instance of theocracy. Another is the gay marriage ban, for which few cogent non-religious arguments have been made.
The strong version of the objection to theocracy is that people have an obligation to use non-religious arguments. Why? I think it's because it seems wrong to many of us to have important public policy debates in language that isn't cognizable to every citizen. For example, I wouldn't like to see a debate over workfare v welfare be decided by Talmudic arguments that turn on the meaning of Biblical passages.
Anyhoo, if you're actually interested in this area of political thought, it's generally referred to under the aegis of "public reason." It's an enormously rich field, with tons written on it, both pro and con.
Another is the gay marriage ban, for which few cogent non-religious arguments have been made.
Forget I said that. Gay marriage is like a rhetorical black hole, and few discussions are able to escape being sucked into its gravity. Public reason & theocracy is too interesting to be led astray by the gay marriage debate.
Well, I was not aware of the moniker "public reason", but this brings up a good point. Perhaps Christians should only speak of a "biblical world view" amongst themselves.
In public debate over issues, I absolutely think we should be standing on reason and argument, not "the bible says so." However, there are "gray areas" like the one you mentioned that may not have a clear argument for or against them.
However, there is an important reason for xians to continue to explore and develop a biblical world view, rather than just relying on naturalistic arguments.
1. The bible gives a basis for an integrated world view
2. The bible calls out wisdom (for the gray zones especially) that may not be immediately obvious through natural reasoning, like the morality of certain sexuality.
As I have repeatedly said, though, we should be careful in our legislation – we need to allow for personal freedom without condoning questionable behaviors through legislation.