On Theocracies Pt. 2

Now in my last post on this matter I explained why I thought the term theocracy was inaccurate in describing the situation in which religious leaders run a state. The problem with the idea of a theocracy is that you have some clerics or priests or just particularly devout lay-people who have to act as intermediaries. That's the tricky part - and that's why a government cannot, in my opinion, truly be a theocracy. In any major religion there is always some controversy. Since the Christian tradition is the one I know best, I'll concentrate there for examples. From the very get-go of the early church there were arguments about food, idols, circumcision, charismatic gifts, and all sorts of things. And that's just what's in the Bible, if you look through the discarded stuff (the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul & Thecla, the Infancy Gospel of James, and many, many more) you realise that the early church had one controversy after another. The early monastic movement was almost something that broke free of the church, then there was the schism of 1054, the Roman church in the West, the Orthodox churches in the East. If that wasn't enough, Luther and Calvin come onto the scene in the 16th century, and so it goes...

Why mention all this, well simply to point out, that, in the confines of just one faith, it seems impossible to get any agreement about what God is saying. So how could a modern nation state of any size find agreement on how to understand what God wants?