https://www.plough.com/en/topics/faith/discipleship/why-i-went-cold-turkey-on-political-theology
This is the story of a man who switched from reading the Scriptures through the lens of politics over to a posture of worship and reflection.
Some undoubtedly would argue that these are not mutually exclusive categories. One can read the Scriptures doxologically, and with wisdom, and they might even argue that wisdom demands the extrapolation of a political angle.
And yet all too often this involves little more than data mining, using Scripture (usually out of context) in order to justify a strategy, or to frame an issue. It's not a faithful way to read Scripture and while everyone seems to agree that Christ is the centre of Scripture, I find very few that have understood it or are able to apply it in real terms.
In the case of Roberts (the author of the piece) he makes it clear that precommitments drove his reading. It's as if a lens was provided by which he viewed all things and all questions. The lens was not Christ and in many respects was not even Moses as problematic as that might be. It was something else, a construction, a speculation, derived piecemeal and in ad hoc fashion from Scripture, the philosophical-theological tradition of Christendom, and some of the contributions of post-Enlightenment thinkers. It might possess a kind of coherence but not one grounded in Scripture or rooted in reality.
I was pleased to note that he also picked up on the irony regarding some of the more recent permutations of the Theonomic school and its attempts to synthesize the diametrically opposed Mosaic Law and Enlightenment categories of rights, the individual, and economics.
I too remember being overwhelmed by the sheer volume and productivity associated with this faction. In my case it was the 1990's and while the Internet was accessible it didn't yet have a lot of material nor a heavy presence in people's lives. For my part it was books and newsletters. I was on mailing lists and my post office box was flooded with their materials which were aggressive in tone. I could have been swayed and yet wasn't, but it's not difficult to see how someone could get caught up by the energy they generated.
Reliant on worldview thinking derived from Continental philosophy their vision was sweeping and holistic, touching on virtually every facet of life. For someone living in an increasingly unstable world (that looks rather solid and calm when compared to today), they seemed like a Gibraltar-like rock upon which one could rest. And while Christians used to regularly argue for the viability of democracy on the basis of a social consensus, the very notion has collapsed and now in light of the challenge being made by secularism, for many Theonomy (or Integralism for Catholics) seems the best and most viable option out there. It's not the case, but that's how many assess the situation and for them it remains the only possible solution.
I had my doubts and in subsequent years would learn that rock was in fact hollow and made of sand. I am pleased to find that Roberts was eventually rescued from their deceptions.
His comments regarding polemics captivate me as indeed I have watched many Theonomists paint opponents into corners but as he admits, they are blind to their own school's shortcomings and the many weak points and holes in their reasoning. While at seminary I would frequently engage the Theonomists and it wasn't hard to silence them. My roommate whose family was deeply immersed in the movement seemed to suffer a crisis, often sitting on the telephone until the wee hours of the morning re-hashing it all with his father. The next day he would come at me both barrels blazing and I could see the anguish on his face when I would dispense with his rehearsed arguments with hardly any effort. None of this is to suggest that I am somehow gifted or brilliant in the realm of polemics. It was simply the fact that I knew the Scriptures better than these guys did and I don't waste time on secondary arguments and let myself get entangled by their little apologetic traps. Go for the foundation or to use another metaphor don't battle up in the branches, cut the tree down.
The problem for this school is not some minor misreading or misapplication of the Mosaic Law. It's much more fundamental. They don't understand how the Bible works and what the New Testament says about the Old. New Testament doctrine spawns a crisis for them as it doesn't answer the questions they want, it doesn't scratch the places that itch for them. The answer is very simple - you're asking the wrong questions. Understand what the New Testament says and the questions that so dominate your mind will all but disappear.
It reminds me of the opening of Acts when the disciples are still asking about the Kingdom being restored. The answer was Pentecost and Peter's sermon regarding the nature of Christ's Kingship. They were asking the wrong questions. Dispensationalists are still looking for the question to be answered and falling back on passages like Genesis 12. The problem with the disciples in Acts 1 was not a question of timing but the presuppositions undergirding the question. They were still thinking in terms of an earthly Kingdom - one that would be like Rome but righteous. They had fundamentally misunderstood and Pentecost made this clear. Christ was enthroned but the Kingdom is in Heaven.
Roberts has a solid understanding of the problems and rightly identifies the spin-off factions and permutations. Gary North later tried to disavow his Y2K fearmongering but he tapped into a growing militant-survivalist streak in the same way Doug Wilson is today. In fact the Rushdoony-inspired narrative of social collapse and reconstruction is probably more likely to gain traction at the present hour than it would have in the 1990's.
And alongside these models the Confederate revival has gained traction with a great deal of historical revisionism to help it along - a discussion that again leads to Doug Wilson. And you might say his very style is what resonates with the Trumpian moment and is what is drawing so many young people to his camp.
And as odd it seems, Theonomy has re-emerged in the UK but in its post-2000's repackaged form that is much more marketable and palatable for the masses and the growing number of frustrated, desperate, and even angry Evangelicals.
Though I would say it more forcefully, it's clear that our modern Theonomists and many within the larger Dominionist sphere are those who are interested in Christ and profess to follow Him and yet do not receive His words and in fact resist, reject, and even ridicule His teachings. This is a pretty harsh assessment and a strong accusation and I stand by it without apology or qualification. Machen wrote Christianity and Liberalism in 1923, and capitalizing off this Strachan wrote Christianity and Wokeness in 2021. Someone ought to write a new work - Christianity and Dominionism for in the latter Judaized and philosophically compromised system we find in fact not the religion of the New Testament but a counterfeit and one that is spreading like wildfire.
Roberts 'conversion' reads powerfully and I hope others will be affected by it. The seeking of power is incompatible with the call to the pilgrim life of cross-bearing. Truly the way of Christ and the gospel message is just foolishness in the eyes of the world. For many, Christianity is just another political package and worse, for some it seems to be little more than a means to an end.
Reading of his revisiting of Scripture was a blessing. Praise be to God.
And yet, I am left somewhat confused. He implicitly levies a rather harsh condemnation of this faction and yet for all that, he remains in their fold and is affiliated with Theopolis, one of their educational institutions. How he is able to square this circle continues to elude me. Understanding this reality took some of the joy out of my reading but it's still worth sharing. Maybe he will break these ties. Let's hope so.