Out of Egypt:

if you're like me and are attracted by the sight of theological trainwrecks...

Take a look at this - what is quite possibly the most comprehensive critique of theonomy I've ever seen, from someone who once was a theonomist. (Warning: it's extraordinarily long - the price you pay for trying to comprehensively document a movement that prefers to works in the shadows.)

The author is harder on Douglas Wilson than I would be (except for his functionally racist book defending the institution of Southern slavery, which I would argue is possibly one of the most soul-killing inventions of humanity and one of the greatest blemishes on the conscience of Christians and (especially) the Reformed). He also takes James Jordan to task for his "hermeneutical maximalism" a little more strongly than I would; the man is nothing if not interesting, and even if he can be a master of eisegesis at times, he seems orthodox in the important things. (I'll have to look into him more, I suppose.)

Other than those quibbles, I think he's pretty much on target - at least in the things that I know something about from other sources. And if you think his rhetoric is a bit too much at times, you probably haven't been reading much theonomic literature lately - or ever.

The only thing he left out, to my knowledge, is the American Vision-Center for Reclaiming America axis of theonomy (which is probably the scariest to me, because, like Robertson, it somehow actually has sway with people actually in political office, or at least who are running for election). He also didn't mention Doug Phillips by name, though I supposed he covered Phillips implicitly by mentioning homeschooling patriarchalists. Of course, there are patriarchalists and patriarchalists, and compared to the real hardcases, Phillips is actually pretty tame. Some of what he offers in his catalog is actually worthwhile, after all. But this makes him more dangerous, I think, simply because he can seem innocuous at first, whereas people like "Scary Gary" always seem a bit off. (Unless of course, North is being interviewed by the New York Times Magazine on the gold standard, or is at a libertarian conference - then he's just an economist. And, of course, he is an economist, and a smart man - just not a well-balanced or gracious one.)

The one real surprise in reading the article was that Sandlin is still at Chalcedon. I thought I remembered reading 4 years ago when I was getting into the Federal Vision controversy (blogosphere edition - see my old blog archives for evidence of that crazy time) that Sandlin was getting the heck out of Dodge, and trying to become a "catholic Reformed" person a la the new James Jordan. And good for him, I thought - good that he knows a sinking ship when he's on one. But if he's still trying to man it while it goes down...that's just too bad.

Here's the author's summary statement on the movement (from the perspective of fruits rather than roots, though I would argue that it can actually be traced how the intellectual roots issue in these bad fruits):

Theonomists are uncharitable folks, even the women, many of whom end up acting far less than “feminine.” Theonomic attitudes towards education, the family, the church, the OT law, etc., are strident and harsh, and dissenters treated with disdain and often virulent hatred. Further, theonomists, especially the younger, third-generation ones, regularly show an air of spiritual superiority that galls mightily (Wilson and Co’s disdainful, sarcastic tone in C/A is an actually quite mild version of this, indeed). Theonomy also tends to split up churches. A wide variety of “home everything” nuts abound who piously bleat that they “have no fellowship” so cannot attend any church, when it is usually far more often the case that they are afflicted with a large case of obnoxious personality disorder, cannot submit to elders, and have failed at their strident attempts to proselytize all the churches they have attended into their particular version of theonomy. On the Northian, ecclesiocratic side, moreover, these people largely still have terminal OPD, still tend to split at issues so trivial as to make an Amishman blush, and to set up endless micro-sects and individual, self-anointed churches to serve as headquarters for personality cults, quirky doctrines, and institutionalised hatred of whomever was split off of.

Of course, the real irony is that, according to leftists (including the oh-so-fashionable Bill Moyers), this bunch of loons are the real power behind the throne for the Bush Administration. Tell that to Gary North some time, see what reaction you'd get. I must give him credit for one thing - he did wittily and accurately describe himself on the backs of his books (back when he could still afford to publish them - i.e., pre-Y2K) as someone who thought Rush Limbaugh was a leftist.

Given that Robertson, Dobson, et al, continually show support for the Republican party, and given that self-described conservative evangelical Christians are the most consistency reliable voting bloc for Republican politicians, you may perhaps understand why many leftists are as scared of this as they are and why they are so closely associated. One particularly extreme example of this who enjoys scant support even under evangelical Christians (and I'd venture to say, much lower name recognition than other evangelicals) holds no sway with the white house? Well whoop de shit!

Recall that in 2000 Bush had a meeting with a group of several prominent evangelical leaders, led by a mister Tim LaHaye. Bush suitably impressed them, and they through their weight behind him as a candidate. If you think this was an insignificant factor in the 2000 election, I have several bridges you might be interested in.

Of course, David Kuo says that the Bush White House attitude towards conservative christians is largely symbolic, mostly empty pandering to attract votes. In fact, I find this easy to believe. So you are technically correct in saying that it is probably wrong to say this is the real power behind the throne. But as long as the Republicans can keep throwing just enough red meat to their base to keep them satisfied, they will reward them in the form of votes. So, electorally, I think it would be accurate to characterize much of the Republican's political power as coming from people who believe in Left Behind and scarier things.

My point here isn't to say that you're completely wrong, here. I think the interests of big business and the PNAC types were larger driving factors than "this bunch of loons." But I think it is wrong for you to outright dismiss people who would come to such conclusions. Their frame of reference is wildly different from yours, and Evan, I would venture to say that very, very few people have as in-depth or nuanced an understanding of theology as you. If you care to explain why Bill Moyers, specifically, is wrong, I can understand that, but to simply brush aside the fear "Leftists" in general have towards such people as crazy ideas, and to imply that it's just ridiculous that the ideas ever entered anyone's head is, I think, somewhat facile on your part. From a PR perspective, hearing Bush talk about how he talks to God and what an earnest Christian he is, etc, and seeing so many of the Left Behind crowd enthusiastically supporting Bush...well, is it -that- surprising that many would take it at face value? What's the "irony" here?

(One final note: I'm using 'conservative christian' in the generic way it tends to be used. I'm not intending to offend you or to lump you in with anyone that I think you wouldn't want to be lumped in with.)

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 6, 2007 12:37 AM

" to simply brush aside the fear "Leftists" in general have towards such people as crazy ideas, and to imply that it's just ridiculous that the ideas ever entered anyone's head is, I think, somewhat facile on your part."

Awkwardly phrased on my part. Let's try again:

"To characterize leftists' fear of such people as crazy, and to imply that the fact that the ideas ever entered their heads just shows how foolish they are is, I think, somewhat facile on your part."

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 6, 2007 12:40 AM

One final thought before I go to bed: I'd venture to say that even a large number of the 'loons' themselves believe they are the driving force. See: widespread dismissal of Kuo's claims among evangelicals (of course, it's understandable why they would not want to believe that), and the griping and implied threats by the likes of Dobson I remember around 2004 (I think, no link handy) in which he and several other social conservatives complained that Bush had not done enough on their pet issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, and if something wasn't done about it, they didn't *need* to urge their followers to support them. You'll recall Harriet Myers, largely opposed among this group not on the grounds of her experience or lack of it, but on fears that she wouldn't rule the way they wanted to on their pet social issues. Things like this were what made them more angry than anything else: a feeling that Bush owed them, and if he didn't pay them back, they would respond by not voting for him. This is what I referred to by "electoral" power.

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 6, 2007 1:11 AM

I said: "...they didn't *need* to urge their followers to support them."

The "them" was Republicans. I type too stream-of-consciousness sometimes. Good night.

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 6, 2007 1:12 AM

Sandlin is, sort of, trying to cast himself as a "catholic Reformed" type; he's a regular contributor at Reformed Catholicism and PostReformed.

Posted by: Adam Parsons at January 6, 2007 1:45 AM

But Adam, is he still with Chalcedon? That sounds like two masters who would be hard to serve - for lo, Chalcedon is a jealous lord and will censure him if he dares to question the traditions of the elders.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 6, 2007 1:58 AM

The anti-Theonomy "critique" you refer to was written in the year 2000 while Sandlin was still with the Chalcedon FOundation. It was written by Thomas Roche, a person who was clearly unqualified to write such a piece. It is not "comprehensive", nor is it "on target", but is instead an ad hominem diatribe against Christian "Theonomists" in general.

The writer uncharitably accuses all Theonomists of being "uncharitable" as if he would know what real Christian charity would be. And the writer also makes sweeping and hasty generalization fallacies which he imputes to all Theonomists on the basis of the alleged faults of one or a few. He also wrongly accuses Theonomists of "splitting up churches" and " proselytizing". These assertions which like many of his other ones, he doesn't bother to prove with any supporting evidence.

If you want to see how absurd his many accusations are, just substitute the word "Calvinist" for "Theonomist" in his article. Or substitute the word "presbyterian" instead. Mr. Roche clearly has a big chip on his shoulders in regards to some "Theonomists", but that is no excuse to publish blatant lies about them.

BTW for you to suggest that a Christian organization like "American Vision" is "scariest", is not only laughable, but sheer paranoia.

And my 2001 detailed reply to Thomas Roche's critique of "Theonomists" can be found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theonomists/message/3926

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theonomists/message/3948

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theonomists/message/3976

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theonomists/message/12528

Posted by: Colin at January 13, 2007 7:18 PM

Sometimes things have lives far beyond what one would have expected intitially. When I wrote this piece, almost seven years ago now, I was really embittered by my then still quite recent bad experiences in theonomyland. I understand that some of the language used would probably be best edited for effect, but I have never been shown where I actually erred in any of the comments I made, at the time I made them. Mr. Tayler is a noted theonomist apologist, and he has almost single-handedly tried to show that what I wrote was substantively factually erroneous. Sadly, nothing is wrong because Tayler or any other critic says that it is. Interpretations may differ-- facts underlying those interpretations cannot be anything other than right or wrong. Asserting something is wrong is merely giving one's opinion, and the fact that I do not cite a written source for each claim of mine does not disprove any of those claims-- this is an internet opinion piece. Whenever I get around to writing it for publication I will try to document as much as possible, but the fact remains that theonomy leaders tend to clam up quite distinctly whenever anyone attempts to get one to give historical details about certain aspects of their history, especially details about the life of RJ Rushdoony. One day, I plan to write the definitive unauthorized biography of the man, but I expect deep difficulties getting information in certain key areas nonetheless.

Posted by: Thomas Roche at March 11, 2007 10:11 PM