I say this while admitting there has always been a degree of
schizophrenia within the Christian Right regarding Liberalism's values. They
flow directly from the Enlightenment and largely represented a rejection of
Christendom. American isolation allowed for a kind of Pollyanna synthesis of
the ideas that was possible due to a social consensus rooted largely in
ignorance of Liberalism's implications. Of course Classical Liberal thought
which is quite contrary to the Reformed Theology of the Puritans and others did
play a part in creating the American sensibility which has and remains hostile
to Calvinism. It's Semi-Pelagian through and through.
At the turn of the century in 2001, Theonomy's founder and
patron saint RJ Rushdoony died and the movement fragmented, some figures and
factions turning to a more Libertarian model, others downplaying their
hostility to the US Constitution and instead engaging in a great deal of
revisionism with regard to both their movement and US history. Others had
already become focused on a Remnant mindset, building an army through child
bearing and 'Christian' education as they understand it. This is the polar
opposite of the Remnant motivations of some within the Two Kingdom orbit.
Some rejected the progress inherent in Classical Liberalism
altogether and adopted wistful Romantic-style narratives about Agrarianism and
the darkness that came with the Industrial Age. These are often wed to
meta-narratives concerning Calvinism, US history and the Confederacy in the
Civil War.
The movement has had a tremendous impact and though a lot of
their political ideas and jurisprudence have not won the day, the general
framework has, and more than anything by dispersing and disseminating Dominion
Theology they have played a very important role in transforming American
Evangelicalism. Even though Dispensational Premillennialism is still the
default Eschatology, the majority of Evangelicals have embraced Dominionism and
though such a union is actually theologically and ideologically schizophrenic
they now understand the Christian life in Reconstructionist and Postmillennial
terms.
Eschatology often decried as academic and unimportant is
actually one of the most important doctrines in the New Testament. It's more
than end-time schemes. Our expectations and understanding of the nature of the
Kingdom determine how we live now. Eschatology isn't about speculation with
regard to the future. It determines the nature of the Kingdom and how we are to
live in light of it.
While Evangelicals are still arguing over Russia, Iran, China
and which verses in Revelation refer to them, they are nevertheless living like
Postmillennialists who believe it is the task of the Church to reign over
society and control its institutions. This is the legacy of the Dominion
Theology communicated through figures like Francis Schaeffer and with a slight
variation, the Theonomic movement initiated by RJ Rushdoony.
There are still a few 'Old School' Theonomists about. Georgia's
Joseph Morecraft certainly qualifies. While technically Theonomy is a position
within the Presbyterian framework regarding an interpretation of the Westminster
Confession's teaching on the Law, this is but one aspect of its larger system.
The issues regarding the law got the most attention in the 1980s and 90s as the
Theonomists called for the execution of blasphemers, homosexuals and
disobedient children.
But the real heart of the system is Postmillennialism fueled
by Dominionist theology. This is why that though Theonomy failed within the
context of Presbyterian Confessionalism the larger Dominionist project has not
only come to dominate those very same circles but has become an ecumenical
driver incorporating almost the whole of the Evangelical and even Charismatic
worlds. People aren't arguing over the specifics of Mosaic case law anymore but
in general terms most Christians now embrace the concept of a Christian
dominated and ruled society and by default will look to the Old Testament as
the normative structure for New Testament nations. That's what Theonomy was
really all about. It was trying to work out the details and the jurisprudential
minutiae and fit them within the framework of Confessional Presbyterianism.
Most Evangelicals are happy to ignore the details (and the Presbyterianism) and
look at the big picture. They're focusing first on winning the culture and then
they can turn to the myriad of particular questions and applications of Old
Testament law.
While Postmillennialism has not been embraced, Dominionism
more or less forces everyone into that mindset
and certainly an embrace of the agenda. Theoretically Evangelicals are still
talking about rebuilt Temples and revived Roman Empires, but practically
speaking they have become Postmillennialists committed to the transformation of
society and the reification and restoration of Christendom.
Listening to this Morecraft sermon I was struck by the same
old addled argumentation filled with extra-Biblical speculations and
contradictions. Morecraft's categories are faulty from the start and so his
'sermon' (in reality a political lecture) is all but canceled out.
His Biblical exegesis is flawed and distorted and as usual
completely divorced from the context. Their treatment of Romans 13 isn't just
wrong, it's ridiculous and anachronistic. Paul wasn't outlining limited
government functions. Theonomy has never grasped Redemptive-History and cannot
understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. This most
crucial of questions is in fact so misunderstood by them that the whole of
their theology, even the impulses that drive it are in error. As has been said
before, at the end of the day Theonomy has misread the Bible on a massive
scale. They quite literally have not understood its message.
The same old tired and absurd arguments are put forth. John
Calvin becomes the progenitor of modern Western Civilisation, completely
ignoring the role of the Enlightenment not to mention its largely negative
relationship to Reformation thought. The American Revolution is completely
revised and cast in light of the Reformation while Locke, Montesquieu and the
role of autonomous reason are completely ignored.
Then we get down to the real meat... what's the Christian
life about? What's our real concern? Well, according to Morecraft we're back to
criticising fiat currency, defending the gold standard, myths about the United
States being under Sharia law, and even a favourable mention of that old
Bircher icon congressman Larry McDonald. A few years after his death in 1983,
Morecraft tried to run for his congressional seat but thankfully failed.
The contradictions are rampant and absurd, and at times
dangerous. While Morecraft doesn't openly advocate rebellion, the impulse is
always there. At the end of the day Christians are only to obey the laws that
Theonomy deems as legitimate. This is a dog-whistle call to insurgency and
ultimately revolution. They even have a made-up doctrine to go with it. The gun
culture that runs rampant in those circles is also a cause for concern.
Of course (according to Morecraft) under a Theonomic state we
would have no thought police! Morecraft is appalled by the measures taken by
the US government since 9/11. No thought police? Is he serious? Is he that
blind or that sinister? And yet under a Theonomic administration he freely admits
we would have laws against sacrilege and blasphemy. How does one enforce such laws
apart from thought police and the elimination of free speech?
This is the irony of the Christian Right. While on the one
had they set themselves up as über-patriots they are in fact very opposed to the US Constitution and
the Classical Liberal values it espouses. That's fine, just admit it. And I
will give them this, the Theonomists alone are pretty open about their
rejection of the Constitution. They've always been pretty clear that their
understanding of patriotism would involve an immediate revision and recasting
of the Constitution. Some might call that revolutionary, even treacherous but
they know better. They are the 'real' Americans.
Rushdoony never shied away from this commitment to changing
the Constitution and essentially decimating centuries of jurisprudence...even
while somehow praising and defending the American Revolution and the principles
which founded the nation. While I praise their honesty, in truth even while
denouncing the Constitution they were (and are) still engaged in self-deception
(if not delusion) on a massive scale. They love America and yet actually hate
it. But I'm afraid that doesn't market very well, does it?
On Biblical grounds, I too reject the Classical Liberalism of
the Founding as well as the Revolution, let alone the essential premises of the
Constitution. That said, I utterly reject Theonomy as a dangerous heresy that
is completely anti-Scripture. But rather than engage in political subversion I
argue our task is to live as exilic pilgrims bearing witness and suffering the
consequences... flight or fire. Theonomy advocates violence, not openly of
course but that's what it leads to. They've started the fire and even though
the arsonists are fading away, the fire is lit, is now burning and they who
initiated it bear some responsibility.
There's more we could say regarding the Theonomist
appropriation of Cornelius Van Til's thought and (despite their critiques of
Thomism) the Neo-Scholasticism they actually represent. When Theonomy was
further sundered by the Federal Vision controversies, Morecraft's rationalism
was put on display. He represented the worst of the Theonomic movement falling
into the same old Hyper-Calvinistic (and essentially Baptistic) categories
which have dominated Reformed theology since the 19th century. It
makes sense as his heroes of the Southern Zion, figures like Thornwell and
Dabney were cut from the same cloth.
I must say in looking up Morecraft, who I had not considered
in some time, I was particularly disgusted with his manipulation of Presbyterian
polity. These men are amazing. How many Presbyterians have I battled with over
polity? How often have I been castigated by them over issues of membership and
a failure to submit to their canon law and extra-scriptural bureaucracy? But
then when Morecraft comes into conflict with the machine, he just walks away,
ripping congregations apart in the process and starts a new church, joining
with a schismatic (and by Presbyterian standards) renegade presbytery. The
rules they'll beat you over the head with don't seem to apply to them. I feel
quite safe in asserting that many of the leaders within American Presbyterianism
display sociopathic behaviour.
And yet Morecraft is also a creature of great pride. I'll
never forget what I saw back in 1998 at a conference in South Carolina.
Morecraft (by all measures a large man) quite literally swaggered into the hall
accompanied by a crew of toadies that could not hide the haughtiness and
disdain on their faces. Sitting right behind him I found myself enjoying his displays of frustration
and exasperation and then finally his confrontation with one of the speakers
over the 'Spirituality of the Southern Presbyterian Church'. Morecraft didn't
like the message because it conflicted with his own Southern variety of
Theonomy. Pardon this final and quite subjective judgment on my part, but I
have to say whenever I've encountered these folks it must be said that in
addition to their grave theological error there is a spirit about them that
leaves one very troubled. Something isn't quite right.
In conclusion I must say that as 2016 fades away,
Theonomy-proper has all but died. Rushdoony no longer captivates the American
reader. Enough time has passed for researchers to reveal something of what
Rushdoony really was and represented and frankly his twisted views are not
those most are willing to embrace.
Theonomy has been reduced to a sort of lame caricature of
itself, lacking the fervour it once displayed. Pride and faction have decimated
its ranks. And yet like a virus that propagates and dies, the mutations it has
spawned live on and continue to make shipwreck of American Christianity.