Having recently worked through Crawford Gribben's 2021 Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America: Christian Reconstruction in the Pacific Northwest, I was struck by many things but I have repeatedly revisited his reporting on the exchanges between American Theonomy and British outlets like the Banner of Truth. Later as Theonomy would emerge onto a larger stage it would be met with no small degree of hostility from within theologically conservative and Reformed circles in Britain. I don't believe Gribben sufficiently explored this and yet I think the episode to be rather instructive.
I do remember the aftermath of some of these interactions and
the bitterness expressed by some in the Theonomic camp. As I've written
previously, the Theonomic Reconstructionist and Postmillennialism that emerged
in twentieth century America was very programmatic as opposed to the
revival-driven thinking and tradition extant in the UK.
It's also noteworthy that that in addition to different impulses
driving their collective postmillennialism, there was and is a different
heritage vis-à-vis the powers of the state and economics. In the UK, the
conservative churches emerged from the heritage of Nonconformity and were from
the late 1600's to the mid-1800's pushed to the margins of British society and
were excluded from mainstream centres of power. Thus (broadly speaking) with
the advent of the Industrial Revolution these groups of Christians tended to
side with the working poor, commoners, and the average folk in society. Over
time they became associated with Labour movements and in some capacity resented
the power of the aristocracy. They tended to view Classical Liberalism as an
outgrowth of Protestant thought and believed society would be improved through democratic
and socially minded reform. As such, they were sceptical of free market
capitalism and societal institutions rooted in private ownership and thus
motivated by questions of profit. From an American vantage point, these groups
appear almost socialist, though that term is much abused and misunderstood. And
indeed when visiting the UK back in the 1990's I was surprised (coming from a
Right-wing Evangelical background) to find the theologically conservative
Christians I encountered were more left-wing in their thinking. They didn't
like Reagan and Thatcher (both revered by American Evangelicals), but they did
like Clinton and were very excited at the prospect of Tony Blair coming to
power and replacing the Tories then led by John Major. It made my head spin and
it took me a few years to finally understand the 'what' and 'wherefore' as to
their thinking.
I think today, the situation has been reversed or at least is
in the process of change. A re-packaged Theonomy, perhaps under the broader
aegis of Dominionism has re-emerged on the British scene and championed by the
likes of Joe Boot is (I think) gaining significant ground, as well as a shift
in some quarters that has moved default thinking in a more Right-wing and even
Tory-minded direction. There's quite a story here of cultural change
additionally affected by questions of immigration, Europe, Brexit and the like,
but it's one I am unable to fully tell.
Thinking back to the exchanges in the 1980's and 1990's it
seems clear enough that to British Christians the Theonomic claims of being
'Biblical' were suspect as much of their thinking seemed merely to parallel the
proclivities of the American Right. In other words the US-based Theonomists
were simply reading a lot of American thought into their interpretation and exegesis
and it seemed obvious enough to Christians in the UK. The Theonomists attacked
institutions like the National Health Service of NHS – something that many
British non-conformists were proud of. They believed such a social medicine
scheme in fact represented the application of Christian principles to the
social model – while the Theonomists were thinking more like Social Darwinists
willing to let the poor and weak suffer even while others grew rich off their
suffering, which has long been the functional result of the American system.
These British Christians took great umbrage at Theonomic calls to (in good
libertarian fashion) abolish the NHS.
American Theonomists can see in such glaring terms how British
Christians have been deceived and fooled by liberal political frameworks just
as British Christians view American Theonomists as hopelessly corrupted by
American individualist and libertarian ways of thinking. They both have a
point.
For British Christians, the New Testament doesn't outline
forms of Christian government. While ignoring the larger question of whether
such a thing could or should exist at all, they believed that by building on
the theology of the New Testament in combination with the general equity of the
Old they could look for progress in the realm of ideas and political theory.
Therefore, the concepts of 'rights', as well as social contract (at least on a
parliamentary level), democracy and the like were valid outgrowths and
applications of Christian principle. A limited or constitutional monarchy and
thus a kind of hybrid-republicanism were also championed by many of this broad
school.
The state in this view has a positive role to play, even a
didactic one in terms of facilitating the improvement of society through not
just the threat of the sword but in a teaching or shepherding role. This is an
expression of the Whig view of history that saw Protestantism as a road to
social progress (especially when compared with 'backward' Catholic societies
like Ireland). Though it would seem strange and even offensive to contemporary
Right-wing Evangelicals across the pond, these Christians viewed public
schooling, compulsory education and non-profit healthcare as positive Christian
outgrowths and also thought in positive terms with regard to the growth of
industry, medicine and technology.
There were for many years conservative Christians in the
American context who shared these ideas – at least in part. But American
Right-wing politics have shifted considerably over the past few decades and
while Libertarianism was once fringe, today it is mainstream and dominant. The
consensus that once existed has exploded and now many Christians in the United
States embrace anti-Establishment ideas and kinds of agrarian-style and anti-industrial
modes of thinking that were once associated with the radical Left.
Nonconformity in the UK is (it would seem) undergoing a similar shift although
given its very different context will of course look different and avoid the
kind of extremism that so often defines the American character.
For state minimalists thinking in Libertarian terms all of
these ideas and institutions championed by British Christians are something
akin to the abhorrent Nanny State. But their thinking was shaped by the individualism
of the frontier, the pride of the self-made man, the pioneer ethos, and all the
mythology and narratives surrounding American expansion. Theonomy remains
sceptical of progress and liberalism and yet is more affected by these ideas
than its adherents realize or are willing to admit. As already mentioned, in
Britain the Bible-focused Protestants were long reduced to second-class status.
In the United States the WASP Establishment was able to flex its muscle and
came to be associated with not just political power but business ownership,
industry, and money. American Protestants were not second class, in fact for
much of American history they represented the elite and dominant class. As such
their attitudes regarding money and power are very different from their
theological cousins found in British Christianity.
The end result was the meeting of Trans-Atlantic Calvinist
minds in the mid-to-late twentieth century was a case of oil and water and it's
only the shift to the Right in British politics as seen with groups like UKIP,
the Brexit phenomenon, and a growing embrace of Toryism brought about (I would
argue) through the influence of American teaching, that has created an opening.
Other factors (some already mentioned) have playing into the equation – angst
of immigration for example, as well as shifting economic concerns, instability,
and increasing social breakdown. And undoubtedly the sexual revolution has
played a role in pushing people to a point of crisis and as such a wholesale
shift in political thinking and alliances.
In the end, one can see (to some extent and for the sake of
argument) where both of these camps are coming from and why they would disagree
– and yet both have arguments to be made.
But again this is simply for the sake of argument as I would
(on the contrary) argue that both camps are gravely mistaken at a foundational
level and as such it is something of a false debate. Both are wrong and yet the
episode remains instructive. Both sides have arguments that are worthy of
consideration especially when weighing the role and import of Scripture in terms
of Church history and political structures. And we can certainly learn from
their misguided assumptions and the overall exchange. And finally the shift in
the UK that seems to be opening a door to American-style (as opposed to
Biblical) thinking on these issues is also noteworthy and demands further
explanation and reflection.
It would be too expansive a task for Gribben to explore all
these avenues of thought and idea exchange and his work is certainly already
full of valuable information and certainly some helpful insight. But on this
point as with others it only provides provocative (even tantalizing) hints of
larger questions, debates, and issues to explore.