Listening to Theonomists debate is not something I relish or usually
find very profitable but the recent debate between Joel McDurmon of American
Vision and Doug Wilson rekindled some old memories and was informative in
certain respects.
I've written about this before but I will briefly revisit my
own history. I first encountered Theonomy in 1995 just months after my
conversion. Within a short period of time I had abandoned the Dispensationalism
of my youth and much of the thinking that went along with Fundamentalism. In
addition to the Scriptures I was reading authors like Arthur Pink and Francis
Schaeffer and through them I made contact with the larger Reformed world. It
was then that I encountered Theonomy which engendered a crisis, a challenge.
Reading the Scriptures it was clear to me that Theonomy was
erroneous and contrary to the tone and general posture of the New Testament.
But how to refute it? It set me on a path toward wrestling with basic and
fundamental questions of theology and one of the great issues of the age... how
the Old and New Testaments relate to one another.
My initial read was correct and I came to understand what a
grave error Theonomy represented and yet as one who sought to inhabit Reformed
circles I kept encountering it and eventually I came to understand its
underlying impulses and how it was in many ways a re-casting of a more ancient
error.
As far as the McDurmon-Wilson debate I will try to be brief.
The debate over haram and the related
concept of herem are irrelevant to
the debate over Theonomy. In fact a close study of these terms and their use in
the Old Testament is sufficient to disprove McDurmon's use of them. The New
Testament shatters his presuppositions and the very premise of his argument and
that of Wilson's as well. These concepts are redemptive-historical and the New
Testament reveals the destruction of the accursed was a pre-figuring of Christ
and His role as Holy Judge. Theonomy in its typical fashion reads the Bible and
especially the Old Testament in a De-Christocentric (essentially Judaized)
fashion and often is guilty of De-Covenantalism in its application of Covenant
categories to the realm of the profane. They hang massive philosophical
concepts (under the guise of theology) on verses which do not support them and
thus the debate is largely specious. The arguments are built on a series of
false premises and thus the vast majority of the discussion is literally empty
air.
Theonomy employs numerous false dilemma arguments, the most
famous being their appropriation of Van Til's 'by what standard' argument which
he did not use in the way they use it. The movement's apologists attempt to
paint their opponents into a corner and face the dilemma of either supporting
the thesis or arguing against the sufficiency of Scripture.
As I (and many others) have repeatedly pointed out, one of
the ironies is the so-called Christian Worldview necessitated by their
Dominionist project is actually reliant on a synthesis of Scripture with the
knowledge and categories of the world. One of their main problems is the very
idea that they champion... the sufficiency of Scripture. They don't actually
believe the Scriptures are sufficient and range far beyond them to form a
coherent philosophical system.
Theonomy has never been a unified movement. Rushdoony always
represented the Judaizing pseudo-theocratic extreme. I say pseudo-theocratic
because the theonomic/theocratic rule he would have established is in no way of
the same stamp or order of the true Old Testament Theocracy. It
cannot be due to redemptive-history and the meaning of Christ's Person
and Work. The temple veil was torn and that order has ended. The only Theocracy
in our present age is found in the Church and in the realm and operations of
the Holy Spirit. In the Theocracy of the Church is life and eternity. The world
lies in the realm of the prince of the power of the air, and the fires of outer
darkness which await them when Christ returns.
But of course Theonomists are largely Postmillennial and so in
addition to their Judaized reading of the New Testament in terms of the Church vis-à-vis
the world and questions of law, they buttress this with a thoroughly Judaized
eschatology in which they put a Christian gloss on the old Jewish dream of
world dominion in this age... the age the Scriptures refer to as This Evil Age.
Discontent to take up the cross and follow Christ's call to
live as pilgrims, exiles and martyrs they think godliness is gain and believe
that victory comes not only in the age to come but in this age itself.
Theonomy seeks to sacralise and sanctify that which cannot
be, that which is not the realm of the Spirit, that which is not in union with
Christ. As a consequence the Kingdom is degraded and decovenantalised and the
work of Christ transformed into the mundane. Essentially utopian in its outlook
the movement presents a real danger to the Church and has earned considerable
ire on the part of the world. Ironically Theonomists will rail against the
Evangelical Left and any attempt at Social Gospel and yet it was the very ethos
of Postmillennialism which birthed the Social Gospel in the first place. The
latter was merely a theologically downgraded and liberalised version of
Postmillennialism. There are Postmillennialists who are not Theonomists.
Historically this school believed the pre-Parousia 'golden age' of the Church,
the Christianisation of the world as it were would come through mass
conversions and revival. Theonomy has envisioned a more programmatic means of
bringing this about through not only mass conversions but legislation and
essentially cultural conquest.
When Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world, Pilate was
reassured that the non-violence Jesus advocated in his John 18 statement meant
the Kingdom He spoke of was no temporal-physical threat to the reign of Caesar.
That's not the kind of Kingdom Jesus sought to establish, at least not prior to
the Parousia.
Theonomy on the other hand defines the Kingdom in terms that
directly seek to cast down Caesar... or more properly supplant him. Theonomy
has always held a favourable view towards Medieval Catholic Christendom. While
rejecting the Papacy and many of the errors of Rome, the movement resonates
with the 'Christian' society led by figures like Charlemagne.
And yet Theonomy is an American expression, an American
phenomenon, even though it has spread to other countries. It has found a home
in other portions of the English speaking world but remains a tiny minority.
When the movement first gained international attention in the 1980's and 1990's
it was met with hostility by Christian leaders in the UK and elsewhere. Many
British Christians were shocked by what seemed to them a sort of John Birch
Society doctrine wed to conservative Calvinism. The American-ness of the
movement was patent to those outside the United States and very few were taken
in by it.
In some respects I actually wish more people would read
Rushdoony's Institutes. It is at times a rather shocking volume. Virtually no
Theonomists today would echo his specific views but they are quite an insight
into the man and his thought. With good reason he has been called a racist, a
holocaust denier and many other things as well.
And yet who knows what the future holds, the situation is
ever-changing and the Church and society are going in directions that few would
have guessed twenty-five years ago. Theonomy itself gains little traction
abroad but its hybrids are already rapidly gaining ground, especially in places
like Africa and Latin America.
Domestically Theonomy found a home on the fringes of the
American Right and yet many Theonomists have been candid in their recognition
that the American system and its constitution do not accord with their views.
As Right-wing oriented people they tend toward patriotism, capitalism and
certainly a law and order agenda. Capitalism in this case represents the very
syncretism I mentioned in reference to worldview. Without warrant or support
from Scripture, Theonomists have always supported the Enlightenment-born
economic system though some of their numbers have been less keen on a true
Libertarian-type free market. Traditionally the movement has been strongly
anti-Libertarian and has believed in heavy government regulation of everything
from building codes, to speech, personal and private conduct and most have
supported blue laws and forms of censorship. Many in the mainstream would
consider them profoundly anti-American and yet part of their marketing ploy,
from American Vision and Vision Forum to Coral Ridge Ministries and Generations
has been to utilise patriotism and the whole God and Country motif, often
accompanied by a grander meta-narrative concerning modern Western Civilisation.
And yet the Right in this nation has moved increasingly
toward Libertarianism, at least in terms of economics and some social issues.
Libertarianism is more in accord with the values of the Enlightenment,
secularism and certainly harmonises with some of the visions and ideas
presented by the founders.
One cannot be a dyed-in-the-wool patriot while slamming the
constitution as ungodly and seeking to change it and break with the fundamental
narratives of society. Theonomy would certainly suppress oppositional forms of
Christianity and other non-Christian religions. The Bill of Rights would be an
even more dead document than it is now. The dystopian television show 'The
Handmaid's Tale' which I have not seen was inspired by Theonomy.... not just
the Christian Right but specifically the more extreme form of Theonomy.
I'm certain the author got some things right and probably
many things wrong, but it indicates how severe the agenda was when they first
began to garner public attention in the 1980's. People were afraid of them
gaining power, and rightly so. Biblical Christians should fear them most
because you can be assured that people like me, people who oppose them on
Biblical grounds and labour to expose their twistings and distortions of
Scripture... we're a greater threat to them than any feminist or Muslim.
They never came close to gaining real power and yet modified
and somewhat softened varieties of their teaching continue to influence
politics, politicians and our culture at large. Theonomy has always represented
the ivy towered wing of the Christian Right. By the time their ideas trickle
down they have been diluted, modified and blended, enough to frustrate actual
Theonomists and yet opponents of Theonomy are able to see their influence
everywhere.
American Vision once headed by Gary DeMar championed the
patriotic variety of Theonomy and unfortunately his books became quite popular
among homeschoolers. Theonomy was softened and a general dominionist narrative
affected a generation of homeschoolers, Sunday Schools and pulpits and has now
become the dominant theology of Evangelicalism, finishing the Evangelical
transformation of Dispensational theology and Fundamentalism.
And yet the pro-America, pro-Constitutional narratives
supported by DeMar were in many ways at odds with Rushdoony and his Chalcedon
organisation. DeMar's successor Joel McDurmon lacks the gravitas and dignity of
his forebears and has embraced the Libertarianism which seems to be greatly
affecting conservatives of his generation. He has taken American Vision down
the Libertarian road and sounds in some ways more like Glenn Beck than
Rushdoony. He has even embraced some of the delusional revisionism that
Beck-ites seem to promote.
It's been noticed as many Theonomists have become critical of
him. American Vision's days may be numbered or it may survive and turn more
toward the Evangelical mainstream. He has clearly abandoned many of the
hard-line positions of Theonomy and has also abandoned its secret allegiance to
the Confederacy. Not all Theonomists cared so much about this narrative but it's
pretty prevalent. Bahnsen was from the West Coast and to my knowledge wasn't
caught up in any of this but most of the Theonomists I have known are open or
closet Neo-Confederates and some have veered into other directions far more
problematic than Southern nationalism.
Again as a point of clarification, I am a direct descendant
of a Confederate Cavalryman on my father's side and my mother's family is
descended from both Union and Confederate ancestry. I personally hate the Civil
War and renounce all such allegiances. My favourite Civil War movies are
Friendly Persuasion and Shenandoah.
I say all this only to clarify that I'm not just some bitter
Yankee who hates the Confederacy. I hate the war from start to finish and the
myths and lies that dominate both sides. I am disgusted by Christians in
Pennsylvania singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic (which I refuse to stand
for or sing) but at the same time I will not show reverence or honour toward
the Confederate flag and I have no romantic notions about Robert Lewis Dabney,
Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee or the lost cause. For good or ill my American
heritage runs deep to settling the Louisiana Territory, the Revolution, the
French and Indian War, early Virginia, and New England. I'm descended from John
Alden and Priscilla Mullins of Mayflower fame.
I count it all but dung. I have only one allegiance and it's
not to America or any myth-narratives regarding it. If anyone can be critical
of American history and/or both sides of the Civil War, it's me.
McDurmon has apparently experienced something of an awakening
in his Libertarianism and has abandoned some of the Theonomist narratives,
especially concerning the South. All well and good but McDurmon is still a Dominionist
disaster who has perhaps abandoned some of his more egregious errors but is
still very distant from a sound Biblical position on any of these matters.
Much could be said about Doug Wilson and he certainly has his
share of enemies. I have never been a fan of his even though I resonate with
certain points of the so-called Federal Vision. They were beliefs I came to
years before the movement coalesced. Though this sounds prideful I took nothing
from them but at times reading some of their material was refreshing.
Theonomists, Postmillennialists and High Churchmen I have never resonated with
them. The only concord I found was in their persistent Biblicism in the realm
of soteriology, sacraments and certain aspects of ecclesiology leading them to
a position similar to some conservative forms of Anglicanism. I share these
views and yet reject High Church forms of liturgy and the whole of the eschatological
and social framework they advocate.
The debate in the end is an exercise in more traditional
expressions of Theonomy versus the growing Libertarian forms of Dominionist
thought. In many ways McDurmon isn't a Theonomist anymore but he's still caught
in the same morass as Wilson.
At times the debate became tedious and unbearable. I thought
about Paul's statements about wranglings about the law to no profit and his
various condemnations of Hellenised Judaizing in the New Testament. I believe
some of the errors of the Apostolic era were actually close cousins to the
error of Theonomy. To Paul, these folks are enemies and the spurious
super-apostles who sometimes opposed him sounded what I think are very similar
notes and even methods of discourse.
Almost every time I've spent considerable time around
Theonomists the conversation always degenerates into legal minutiae, priggish
pedantry and tiresome discourse on this or that aspect and interpretation of
the law. I felt I was on familiar ground listening to the debate. There's a
spirit about those folks that's rotten and we're warned against it in the New
Testament.
I enjoyed revisiting the issues. I don't spend as much time
on them these days. I cannot recommend the view of either men or the host of
the show with whom I am somewhat familiar but for those interested in the tedium
that is Theonomic debate, this 'debate' might actually be of interest.
See also: