Out of Egypt:

re: theonomy (resp. to colin II)

Colin, thanks for your reply. Too much for me to handle at the moment, but I'll go in reverse order:

6) I've actually read both those introductions before. They don't convince me - the first one, especially, since it talks mostly about classical Calvinism and tries to downplay the novelty of the theonomic thesis (the abiding validity of the OT law). Former theonomists like James Jordan recognize its novelty - his current theology (with which I disagree, but to a lesser extent) issues out of an awareness that the civil and ceremonial can't easily be separated in the OT law.

Furthermore, I question the following: "...the Ten Commandments comprise the summary of God's law. The case laws of the Pentateuch are simply the practical applications of the summary. Logically, if the Ten Commandments are still binding then the explanatory case laws of the Ten Commandments must still be binding." The Ten Commandments are still binding, yes - but let's not think simplistically about the issue. Jesus seems to consider the Ten Commandments adequately summarized by the two commands to love God with heart, soul, and mind, and love neighbor as oneself. I think our whole understanding of Law-keeping needs to be made more relational, especially in light of what Jesus does with the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, but I can't elaborate on this point further at the moment. Dallas Willard's book The Divine Conspiracy may give you an idea of what I mean, though. (And Rene Girard's theological anthropology has been provoking me lately, esp. what he does with the commandments - cf. I See Satan Fall Like Lightning.)

Theonomists don't advocate the violent overthrow of the current government. North rightly condemned Paul Hill for his anti-covenantal vigilantism. However, they certainly do wish for the current government to fall - North has been predicting a collapse for decades. And more recent, moderate figures like Doug Wilson are basically on the same page - see the footage of the History Conference which I recently linked.

5) It's difficult to include cites in an online essay, which Roche admitted was biased. There are many who would agree with what he said.

And even if people like Bahnsen and Gentry are responsible in their rhetoric (not sure about DeMar - I'd have to check, and I frankly don't have the time), the movement as a whole has the "attack dog" tendencies which Roche notes. You can assert that it doesn't, and I can assert that it does, and I can produce quotes backing up my side, and you can produce other quotes, but, again, I really don't have the time. I'm sure you're as aware of the tactics of people like Randall Terry as I am, so I don't know why you're trying to make theonomy appear to be so intellectual and sedate. The more rational leaders inspire the more radical folks on the front lines.

4) Here's what I'm saying about hurting the cause of Christians. This point is probably the root of our disagreement. I want to be ecumenical in the classical sense of the word - to focus on what has been believed by "all Christians in all places," not to the exclusion of other concerns, but at the same time not emphasizing other concerns to the point where they, rather than the Cross of Christ, can be a stumbling block and an offense to unbelievers or to other Christians. (See what I said about orthodoxy and the Nicene Creed, below.) I don't think we need to make any of the following key to our evangelism: libertarian economics (especially in its shameful Southern agrarian form, exemplified by Wilson, Wilkins, and Grant), the 6-day creation, or the "federal husband"/homeschool, etc., etc. portrait of Christian living which is advocated in theonomy (in either its Wilsonian or Vision Forum flavors). There are orthodox Christians, according to any historic, creedal standard, who disagree with these three points, which, as expressed in the theonomy movement, are more reflective of how Christianity has developed in America than of its trans-cultural essence.

3) Furthermore, I question whether men like Grant and Kennedy want bottom-up change as much as they want top-down change. They direct more of their effort in the public square and their finances toward the latter. And this hurts the cause of Christians, too, because we become a scandal because we are seen as a power-hungry group, rather than because we are known for love, for living a "quiet life," and for sacrificially serving others."

And apart from its effect on our witness to the world, historical triumphalism has two further problems. First, it keeps us from being prophetically critical of those within the house of God, those whom we are supposed to judge by their fruits. As Anne Lamott said, "You know you don't know God too well when He dislikes all the same people you do." We need to be careful not to use the Bible to support our preexisting biases and prejudices. Christ could've easily used the Jewish Law, as the Pharisees did, as an excuse to avoid the "people of the Land" - after all, they couldn't have sung Psalm 119 (a favorite of the theonomists) with a good conscience. But His ministry was one of reconciliation, and that, not reconstruction, is the ministry He has given to us.

Second, historical triumphalism narrows our vision of God's purposes - making us think God is an American, or, at best, caucasian. Of course, most theonomists have repudiated the original racism of the movement, as articulated by Rushdooney. But there's still an implicit racism in the idea that the Presbyterians (who are mostly white) are God's particular instrument for the discipling of the nations. We should be more humble in our thought, realizing that the Gospel went South before it went North, and that the developing world may be the epicenter of God's work now. Those who believe God is triumphant in history - a view toward which I am increasingly amenable - should be humble enough to consider that God's plan is much bigger and more surprising than theirs could ever be.

2) Splits often occur because of personal conflicts. But personal conflicts have been aggravated by theological ones. You claim not to know of any splits brought about by theonomy; however, the story of the Tyler, Texas church split is a matter of public record, as is the split between North and Rushdooney. Roche isn't just making these events up, even if the other things in his account are questionable (an assertion for which you, yourself, haven't offered any proof).

1) Thanks for the clarification. I don't see why these credentials render him unfit to comment on the history of the movement, though, especially if, as he claims, he was involved in it for years.

So to conclude, Colin, you haven't convinced me. You've conducted yourself admirably in this exchange, but I regret to say the same is not true of many of your intellectual compatriots.

People have made outrageous claims on behalf of theonomy, like when North said Sutton's five point covenant model was the greatest theological advance of the generation (or something even more extreme - I'm not sure). However, we have to look at what has come of all the work - all the thousands of pages published, all the hundreds of sermons released, and so on.

Can you name anything positive, except in the intellectual realm? Have people become more in love with Christ? More aware of the sinfulness of sin and the beauty of holiness? Have unbelievers been awed by our love, or by our desire for power?

Now theonomy has become a brush with which to tar Bible-believing Christians generally. It's no wonder we strive to distance ourselves from you.

Evan, thanks for your detailed response. It apparent you are still unfamiliar with what Theonomy really teaches, or at least unable to differentiate between what are the essential doctrines of Theonomy ,and the differing applications of its thesis. You know that Calvinists are mostly united on the 5 points (though some are inconsistent 4pointers), yet they differ amongst themselves on other applications of Scripture (e.g. baptism, church government, politics, eschatology, etc). The same is true with Theonomists, while united on core beliefs (as articulated by Rev. Duncan), they still differ on the applications of those beliefs.

In response to #6, The theonomic thesis is not at all "novel". Bahnsen and others have shown its long history in reformed thought. So too have non-Theonomists (e.g. Meredith Kline, Michael Gabbert, Bruce Baron, etc). I refer you to James Jordan's 1979 essay "Calvinism and the Judicial Laws of Moses".

http://tinyurl.com/c5oz2

I can also refer you to Martin Foulner's 1997 book, "Theonomy and the Westminster Confession".

http://www.jamesdicksonbooks.co.uk/bluebanner/bluebanner3.html

While its true that Jordan is indeed a "former Theonomist" who now holds to some erroneous views, that doesn't mitigate the truth of his earlier Theonomic writings. And it is rather easy to separate the civil and the ceremonial since the latter are fufilled in Christ's redemptive work, while the former are not.

And given the complexity of Bahnsen's Theonomic arguments in his 500 page exegetical book on the topic, Theonomists can hardly be accused of treating the law of God "simplistically".

I don't think you can fairly accuse all Theonomists of wishing "for the current government to fall" based merely on the views of Gary North. Here you are making the same hasty generalization fallacy that Roche often does. BTW there is a big difference between "predicting" a future collapse of Government, and "wishing" that it would happen. When a Weatherman forecasts a Tornado in a few hours, does that mean that he "wishes" it would come?

And Doug Wilson AFAIK is not a Theonomist. On his Credenda website he mentioned that it was official policy never to Review any Theonomic book (though he made one exception with North's "Crossed Fingers" book). Also back in 1988 he wrote a good pamphlet called "Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists", which was a critique of both North and Jordan.

Re: Point #5, that whether "many who would agree with Roche" is quite irrelevant. This is called the ad populum fallacy or the appeal to the majority. The fact is that what Roche had written was demonstratably false, regardless of how "many" would agree with his comments.

And in any public essay, one making serious public accusations like Roche had done, he was morally obligated to provide proof. Remember that all accused persons (especially Christian brothers) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Roche never proves any of his accusations. He seems to think that just making the accusations are itself sufficient proof against them. But how would you like to be publicly accused of the same things that Roche accuses Theonomists? And with not even a shred of supporting proof?

Where in the Bible it is taught that we are to engage in an ad hominem smear campaign against our Christian brothers? Your sweeping comment that the "movement as a whole" has "attack dog tendencies" is a clear example of an ad hominem smear against your Christian brothers. And people like Randall Terry are not necessarily representative of Theonomy anymore than they are representative of Christians in general. Once again you are using a hasty generalization fallacy.

Re: Point #4 "hurting the cause of Christians". Personally I think that you and Roche's smear tactics against Theonomists do more to hurt the cause of Christians in the eyes of unbelievers than anything that Gary North has ever written. You claim that you want to be "ecumenical" and "focus on what has been believed by all Christians in all places". But does that include recklessly attacking the reputations of some your Christian brethren?

As for creeds and orthodoxy, I would refer you to Rushdoony's book, "Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church".

As for your comments about "Key to evangelism". Christ told us to teach the nations all things that He has commanded in His Word (Matt 4:4; Matt 28:18-20) and Paul tells us that "all Scripture is profitable" (2 Tim 3:16-17). And that would include things like Biblical economics, 6 day creation, Christian schooling, etc. Now of course there are some orthodox Christians who disagree with 6 day creation and home-schooling, etc. But their error of disagreeing is something that ought to be corrected (not so that they can become "orthodox", but rather so that they will improve their present orthodoxy). Theonomy doesn't teach that unless one is a six day Creationist and a home-schooler, that they are "unorthodox".

But it is an error to deny six day creation, and to deny parents the right to decide how their children should be educated.

Re: Point #3. I can't really address the views of James Kennedy since I never paid much attention to him. But I do know enough of him to know that he doesn't represent Theonomy or Reconstructionism. So any critique of his views is not necessarily a critique of Theonomy or Theonomists. Now if Kennedy or Grant do advocate a "top down change" in the public square, then they are advocating a view that is not in harmony with Theonomy. But I still fail to see how the political and financial views of Grant and Kennedy would merit a "scandal" and "hurt the cause of Christians". Just because unbelievers may see Christians in a negative light, is no reason to change our views to accomodate their wicked standard of ethics. If they falsely accuse us of being "power-hungry", so what? We expect unbelievers to spread lies about Christians. Do you think godless people will admire any good that Christians do? No, they will ignore it and focus on smearing Christians instead.

Your comment about "our witness to the world" doesn't apply to Theonomy. For our main concern as Christians should be how God sees us, and not how godless men see us. Our standard of ethical conduct comes from the Bible, and not from the world who is watching us with a negative bias.

As for "historical triumphalism", you make some very wild comments that are mere rhetoric without substance. Theonomy has never advocated "Racism", nor has Rushdoony either. Nor does Theonomy believe that Presbyterians are "God's particular instrument for the discipling of the nations." Where do you get these wild notions?

And Theonomy actually encourages being "critical of those within the house of God". Many of the writings of Theonomists are critical of "those within the house of God" (e.g. Dispensationalists, socialists, Klineans, Arminians, political pluralists, and even the Moral Majority of the 1980's, etc)

Christ's ministry was that of Christian Reconstruction by way of reconciliating men to God ( 2 Cor. 5:19) and to His law (Matt 5:17-19; John 14:15).

Re: Point #2. As for the "Tyler church"(Good Shepherd Reformed Episcopal church), there was no "church split" involved, so I don't know where you get your "public record" from, but its entirely false. (And I have read much about the events in Tyler from many of those who were there in the 1980's). But even if there was a "split", it would have nothing to do with Theonomy per se. The "Tyler church" did not necessarily represent Theonomy or Theonomists. It was just a church like all other protestant churches where some Theonomists happened to be members.

As for the personal "split" between Rushdoony and North, my reply is, what about the acrimonious split between Luther and Zwingli? Gary North for his part, spent several years seeking brotherly reconciliation with Rushdoony (a fact based on his own published record on the matter). However, since we don't have Rushdoony's published account of the matter, then its hardly fair for any one to attempt to judge their personal and unresolved differences. Rushdoony did however, write a very positive Book Review of one of Gary North's books in the early 90's. And North wrote a glowing eulogy of Rushdoony. But the split itself had nothing to do with Theonomy.

As I said before, Thomas Roche has proven himself incapable of handling many of these issues with any fairness or honesty. And the fact that he remains unrepentant to this day about his 6 year old written essay shows his unwilling to receive any brotherly corrections about it. He's content to smear and malign some of his Christian brothers in order to appease the obviously big chip he is carrying on his shoulders. Roche even said that he doesn't "care" if he is guilty of "libeling or slandering" his Christian brothers at the beginning of his essay. So perhaps you should feel relieved that he didn't also choose you as one of his targets. ;-) Roche also stated that he would "immediately retract any demonstrated errors and apologize forthwith". Yet 5 years after having his errors demonstrated to him, he hasn't retracted anything. This shows that Roche lacks integrity as a critic.

Re: Point #1. I never said or implied that Roche's credentials disqualified him from commenting on the Theonomic School of Thought (and its not a "movement"). And Roche's so called previous "involvement" with Theonomy doesn't necessarily make him better qualified to criticize it. (Dispensationalist Tommy Ice, another former Theonomist, is one clear proof of that when he went into print with an error filled book against "Dominion Theology" almost 20 years ago). Its Roche's personal lack of honesty, fairness, accuracy, logic and documented evidence, that most disqualifies him as a credible critic of Theonomy.

BTW the purpose of my comments was not necessarily to "convince" you of the truth of Theonomy, but rather to persuade you not to blindly swallow every claim that Mr. Roche brings against Theonomists. There are trustworthy critics of Theonomy, and then there are untrustworthy critics. Having studied this topic for close to 18 years, I can fairly say that Mr. Roche is definitely in the latter category.

As to whether "people become more in love with Christ?" Is it not manifested in such things like increased emphasis on Christian education and writings and preachings? Are not the above listed fruits a demonstration that people are "more in love with Christ"? Seeing as how His infallible Word is spiritually relevant to all areas of His creation.

And you ask, are "More aware of the sinfulness of sin and the beauty of holiness?" My reply: Is not the growing awaremness of the sinfulness of public education, and government welfare programs just a few examples of the awareness of the sinfulness of sin? "Sin" and "holiness" are not abstract concepts, but rather can and do exist in tangible form (e.g. the sin of Socialist economics and the holiness of Christian economics. Yes, God's holiness extends even to economic issues too since He is sovereign over all His creation).

Lastly, you ask me to name "anything positive" that has come from Theonomy. That's easy. There more Christian Schools, and more emphasis on explicitly Christian based education, more Christian churches, more Christian publishers, more Christian books, more Christian journals, more Christian acceptance of six day creationism, more Christian appreciation for God's law and for the Old Testament. More Christian involvement in economics, more Christian missions, more Christian political activism, more Christian appreciation for our reformed history, and more Christian optimism about the Church's future . But the real fruit of Theonomy has yet to be seen in the next 500 years of the growing Kingdom of God. That's why we may not "see" full fruit at present (just as 1 Cor 5:1 tells us) Theonomy is a long term Biblical program, like a young and growing Redwood tree in Northern California, as opposed to a perennial flower.

Posted by: Colin at January 16, 2007 6:14 PM

Just a note of correction to my earlier comments. I meant to reference the Scripture "2 Cor 5:7" and not "1 Cor 5:1". Also, I did not intend to write "perennial flower", but rather, I meant to say, "temporal flower".

Posted by: Colin at January 17, 2007 7:07 PM

An "annual flower," I think it's called.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 17, 2007 7:14 PM