A Critical Look at Christian Reconstruction, Theonomy and Dominion Theology.
A Critical Look at Christian Reconstruction, Theonomy and Dominion Theology.
A collection of articles taken from the Internet. While these are mostly critical, this was not intentional. It is simply that I could not find many good articles that defined 'Christian Reconstruction' written by reconstructionist authors. However the critical reviews are probably the easiest way of finding out exactly what is Christian Reconstruction.
Contents:
What is Theonomy? By Jay Rogers 3
Christian Reconstruction by Tom Albrecht 7
Dominion Theology By Gary E. Gilley, Pastor-teacher of Southern View Chapel 18
What About Dominion Theology? Pastor Phil Gaines 21
Dominion Theology/Kingdom Now/ Reconstructionism Blessing or Curse?* 24
The Creed of Christian Reconstruction by Rev. Andrew Sandlin 27
Christian Reconstruction : What It Is, What It Isn't by Gary North, Gary Demar Editorial Reviews 28
The Debate over Christian Reconstruction by Gary DeMar (Atlanta: American Vision, 1988) 29
Christian Reconstruction: A Call for Reformation and Revival By Robert Parsons 33
The Mosaic Law and National Reconstruction by Ralph G. Turk, D.Min 36
What Inspired the Greatest Century of Missionary Advance? By Rev. Peter Hammond 38
Can We Legislate Morality? By Rev. R. J. Rushdoony 41
Conversion or Coercion? By Rev. Andrew Sandlin 43
The Gospel: A Call To Arms By Rev. Monte Wilson III 44
Testing The Foundations Of Theonomy And Reconstruction J. Esmond Birnie, Queen's University, Belfast 47
Introduction 47
Defining Theonomy: The Two Key Propositions 47
The Strong Points of Theonomy 48
Conclusions 53
Endnotes 54
A Reformed Classic by Michael W. Kelley 58
No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics, Greg Bahnsen 58
Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology And Theonomy by Religioustolerance. 66
Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement 71
by J. Ligon Duncan, III, 74604.1331@compuserve.com Department of Systematic Theology Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS Copyright © 1994
Introduction 71
I. What is Christian Reconstructionism? 71
A. Names or Labels 72
B. Types and Groups 72
II. Theonomic Christian Reconstructionism 72
A. People and Books 73
B. The Christian Reconstructionist Agenda 73
III. The Origins of Reconstructionism 74
A. Philosophical: Kuyperian/Van Tillian Calvinism 74
B. Theological: An Evangelical Reform Movement 74
IV. The Fundamental Distinctives of Reconstructionism 75
A. Presuppositionalism 75
B. Postmillennialism 75
C. Transformational Worldview (embracing theonomic ethics) 76
D. Highlights of the Theological Justification of theonomic ethics 76
1. Espousal of Twofold Division of the Law (or the Unity of the Law) 77
2. Hermeneutic of Assumed Continuing Validity 78
3. Appeal to New Testament Citation of Mosaic Case Law 79
4. Non-Arbitrary, non-Circumstantial Design of the Old Testament Case Law 79
5. Mosaic Case Law a Model of Social Justice for All Cultures 80
E. The Marks of a Christian Reconstructionist (Theonomist) 80
Conclusion 80
A Selected Bibliography 81
The Royal Race of the Redeemed by Rev. Andrew Sandlin 82
Topics: 84
Christian Reconstruction 84
The Purpose of the New Adam 85
The Primal Urge 85
Crushed by His Power 85
The Cultural Mandate 85
Man's Destiny 86
The Image of God 86
Managing the World 86
Perverting the Gospel 87
Private Property 87
Theonomy 88
What Is Christian Reconstructionism? By Paul Thibodeau 90
Why Not Christian Reconstruction? 92
The Gospel of Reconstruction 93
Christian Reconstruction's Law-Word 96
The Necessity for Systematic Reconstruction 96
Witnesses of What? 98
The Trojan Horse 100
Amalek 102
Dominion Covenant, Genesis 1: 26-30 105
The Election of Israel 106
The Law of Israel 107
Religious Racism 111
The Process God 112
The Textus Receptus and 'Presuppositionalism' 114
Bibliography 117
The Free Chruch of Scotland's preliminary overture: Theonomy And The Confession Of Faith 121
Letter on the Scottish Free Kirk's Attack on Theonomy 127
One Nation Under God...Or Else! - The Making Of Achristian Police State 128
The Christian Right Seeks Dominion by Sara Diamond 132
Dominion Theology: 135
It's Political Power, Stupid! 139
Kingdom Theology By Albert James Dager 142
Kingdom Theology IIIa 153
The Truth Of Tithing Author: George Potkonyak, Seventh Edition: August 1996 164
What is Theonomy? By Jay Rogers
Theonomy means literally, "God's law," or the belief that the moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding today. This idea states that only Old Testament laws specifically fulfilled in the New Testament are non-binding (such as sacrificial laws, ceremonial laws and dietary laws). The moral Law of God is still the ethical standard for governing individuals and society.
In discussing theonomy, we should first explain clearly what we are not talking about. We are not talking about salvation, but merely government of individuals in society. Salvation cannot come through the Law, but only by grace through faith. A Christian is not under the Law as a means of obtaining salvation; nor are we under the curse of the Law since we were justified by faith. Yet when modern evangelicals claim, "I'm not under the Law," what they often mean is that they are not in favor of it or they are not keeping it. Such a view is called: antinomianism (anti-Law) -- a heresy.
We should next distinguish between justification and sanctification. It is grace alone through faith alone which is the means of our justification and our sanctification. But the moral Law of God remains the measure of sanctification for the believer. Thus, grace is not merely a "covering for our individual acts of sin" but it is "power over all sin."
The moral Law of God, when codified as a basis for civil law, restrains the passion of the sinner (i.e., capital punishment is a deterent to violent crime). It also acts as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Knowledge of the moral Law of God brings individuals knowledge of sin. Then more may be converted through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. How can we be saved unless we first know that we are sinners?
Theonomy implies the systematic theology of covenantalism: the belief that God operates through covenants, or eternally binding legal agreements; that there is no division between the Old and New Testaments; that the New Covenant includes the moral Law of the Old Covenant; that the Old Covenant required grace through faith in Jesus Christ as a means of obtaining personal salvation.
The system of government resulting from theonomy is called a theocracy: literally, "God's government." When we speak of a theocracy, it should be clear that we are not talking about a state run by a national church, or an ecclessiocracy, such as the Holy Roman Empire, or the totalitarian military dictatorships in Muslim fundamentalist states. In a true theocracy, the state does not control the church, nor the church the state, but both spheres of society are under the government of God. There is implied a decentralization of power or a "Christian Republican" form of government.
Opposed to theonomy and covenantalism is the system of dispensational theology proposed by J.N. Darby. Dispensationalism has become popular in the last 150 years through the Scofield reference Bible, which systematized Darby's teachings. Although dispensationalism is currently in vogue, it was not the theology of the reformers Luther and Calvin, the Puritans, the revivalists of the Great Awakenings, nor of great theologians of the 19th century such as Charles Spurgeon and Charles Hodge. It was the Protestants of the Reformation and the Puritans who developed the theology of covenantalism in modern times.
How Theonomists Differ from the Christian Right
The Christian Right may be criticized for putting an undue emphasis on "political solutions" and for not relying strictly on biblical law. Simply put: either we will have man's law or God's law as a standard for civil legislation. We are not looking for a "voice a the table" nor are we seeking "equal time" with the godless promoters of pornography, abortion, safe-sodomy subsidies, socialism, etc. We want them silenced and punished according to God's Law-Word.
Here is a brief list intended for the defense against the usual distortions, misunderstandings and apprehensions regarding some of the goals of Christian Reconstruction.
1. We believe that civil government is only one sphere of government. In fact, it is not even the most important one. We advocate regeneration first and only then reconstruction. We do not advocate revolution.
We are postmillennialists and believe that in the long term the majority of society will be saved or will at least outwardly conform to God's Law. Therefore, our goal is not to capture the political realm, but to work for regeneration of individuals and families at the local level and to reform the church by teaching correct doctrine especially in the area of biblical law. A brief perusal of Reconstructionist books will prove that this is the case. A few deal with civil politics. Most deal with families, the church and Christian education. Most of the early materials for home schooling children were written by Reconstructionists.
A little known fact: R.J. Rushdoony, aside from being the founder of Christian Reconstruction, is also the founder of the modern home schooling movement. Most people who deride the Reconstructionist movement for being "too political" don't realize that.
2. We do not advocate the domination of the church over the state. Nor do we want the state to dominate the church. We want both church and state to conform to God's law. Thus we advocate a "theocracy" -- the rule of God in society through His law. We do not advocate an "ecclesiocracy" -- the rule of the state by the church. We want both church and state to independently conform to biblical law.
How will this be accomplished? From the bottom up, not from the top down. We do not want the state to rule in our private lives. We do not want the state to educate our children or otherwise intrude into our families.
You may ask, In a biblically reconstructed society: Who will be able to vote? Who will be able to rule? Elections will still be determined by popular vote of the people and legislation will still be voted on by representatives. Communities will have been reconstructed through personal regeneration so that the majority of the electorate will be Christian or will hold to a "Christian philosophy." Therefore, the only people qualified to rule will be professing Christians who will uphold the moral law of God. This may be called a "theonomic representative democracy" or a "theocratic republic."
3. We recognize that someone must rule. Either the ungodly or the godly will rule. Take your pick. In a biblically reconstructed society, Christians would have the choice of rulers. This choice might be between a Baptist or a Presbyterian, but both would stand for biblical law. An antinomian or an atheist may run for office, but his views would be so unpopular that he would stand no chance of being elected.
Q:--Would differing theologies among Christian rulers affect their view of civil law?
A:-- Undoubtedly!
Q:-- Would civil rulers be able to interfere with the affairs of the church?
A:-- Definitely not!
Thus, while we believe that theology cannot be divorced from a man's view of civil politics, we do not believe that church polity can in any way be regulated by the civil government.
4. We recognize that the only standard for civil law is biblical law. Civil law must has some standard: either it is human autonomy (what man sees as right in his own eyes) or it is biblical law (what God declares to be right in His Word). Again, take your pick!
Some have objected that this would lead to the mass stoning of homosexuals and incorrigible children. Reconstructionists must emphasize that what we want is not strong rule by the federal government in determining these matters, but the freedom for individual Christians, families, churches, and local community governments to rule without interference from a centralized state. We believe that Reconstruction is from the ground up. Mass regeneration must precede Reconstruction. As more are converted to Christ, more individuals become self-governing. This leads to stronger families and churches and the ability of local communities to govern their own affairs. Thus the total numbers of cases of sodomy or of uncontrollable children would grow less and less. The state would rule in fewer and fewer cases.
5. We do not want any one religious denomination to dominate political life in America. The is apparent from viewing the Reconstructionist movement. Some are Baptist, some are Presbyterian, others Charismatic, Episcopalian, Congregationalist, Methodist, etc.
We are united on our adherence to Reformed Social Theory, Biblical Law, Eschatology of Victory, Christian Dominion in Society, and Presuppositional Apologetics. We are all Protestants, but we have very different ideas in terms of theology. No person in a biblically Reconstructed society would be forced to adhere to any one denominational belief.
6. We do not want to return to Old Testament Law in its entirety. The New Testament has rescinded certain aspects of the Mosaic Law, such as religious ceremonies, feasts, and dietary laws. There are moral laws given in the New Testament as well. We believe that all of Scripture is the basis for law, not merely the Old Testament.
7. We believe that there are two biblically prescribed punishments enforceable by the state: execution and restitution. We do not believe in jail sentences. We believe in only the biblically prescribed punishments for violations of the moral law.
We do not believe that the state is the final arbiter in all matters pertaining to the moral law. Most of these cases would be resolved within families or within churches. However, only the state may execute criminals for capital crimes; only the state "bears the sword" (see Romans 13).
8. We want civil government to punish evil doers according to biblical sanctions. We want all moral laws of the Old Testament to be enforced according to biblical standards.
Some may object: Isn't this harsh? Isn't this barbaric? No, in fact it will lead to greater liberty for the godly. We want the ungodly punished according to God's Law-Word because it is what God prescribes. We have been conditioned according to a humanistic worldview to reject Old Testament law as "barbaric" or "outdated." God's law is not harsh, barbaric nor antiquated, because God is neither harsh, barbaric nor antiquated!
Main Premises of Theonomy
The general principles used by Reconstructionists with regard to interpreting the Law of God can be enumerated as follows:
1. God's law is eternal. Jesus said that not one jot nor tittle would pass away before heaven and earth passed away. This includes the laws of Moses.
2. Not all law is "binding" on Christians under the New Covenant. For instance, the obligation of sacrifices was satisfied when Jesus died on the cross. When Christ said: "It is finished," he died once for all our sins. Therefore, sacrificial laws are still valid (they have not passed away) but they have been fulfilled once for all. Other laws not considered binding have to do with cleanness and uncleanness, dietary laws, feast days, and religious ceremonies. These are still valid and have meaning, but both the laws and their sanctions have been fulfilled through Christ's death on the cross.
3. Old Testament Laws are no longer binding only if addressed by the New Testament. If a law was specifically addressed by Jesus or one of the apostles in the New Covenant as having an altered New Covenant application, then that law or category of laws, is no longer considered binding. In Covenant Theology, this is known as a "Covenantal Shift."
4. All "moral" laws are still in effect. The principle here is if the New Testament is silent on a moral law, then the Old Testament law is still binding. For instance, the New Testament says nothing about bestialism. Surely, no one would claim that that is no longer valid because it is in the Old Covenant. Moral laws do not need to be specifically "renewed" by the New Covenant to be binding. Jesus, in fact, renewed all of the moral laws.
5. The sanctions of the moral laws are also still in effect. However, all the major Reconstructionist thinkers argue that there has been a "covenantal shift" in regard to sanctions dispensed by the church and sanctions dispensed by the state. Only the state may execute criminals under the New Covenant. For crimes that come under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical government, the church may excommunicate its members and pronounce imprecations (curses) on sinners. But the church may never execute its members. Here, the way the law is enforced has changed.
6. All the sanctions of the law are still enforced, but some are enforced in a different manner. Under the New Covenant, crimes against God (blasphemy, idolatry, etc.) are punished in a way that seems less harsh in this life, but in reality, being delivered over to hell with the church as a witness is a far more serious punishment.
Reconstructionists differ and argue about how the law is to be applied in some cases. We do not understand how to apply it in every case. Sometimes it might be difficult for us to understand. But does that make the Old Testament law invalid? Does that make it wrong, because we don't understand it, or it may seem harsh to our modern sentimentality? Absolutely not! The enemies of God's law like to argue that laws that do not seem right in their own eyes, cannot be valid. They say, "I cannot see how this could be true," or, "I accept this law, but I cannot accept that law." We need to be careful that we do not become a law unto our own selves. The standard is always the Word of God.
Common Questions on Theonomy
The points outlined above, are a fair and accurate description of Christian Reconstruction. This is by no means comprehensive, but it represents the main premises of theonomy as agreed upon by all major Reconstructionist thinkers.
I obviously cannot answer all questions that have been posed about Christian Reconstruction in so short a space. However, here I will briefly answer some of the more common questions about theonomy:
1. In what specific sense, and to what scope, does Christian Reconstruction see Old Testament Law as applicable to modern society?
In general, all the moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding, while dietary and ceremonial laws are non-binding.
2. What practical means does Christian Reconstruction advocate for applying Old Testament Law?
Mainly through regeneration. Reconstructionists do not advocate a strong federal government, but we advocate self-government with liberty.
3. Would theological "orthodoxy" be an area enforced by civil government?
No, absolutely not. This is the domain of the church.
4. Who would determine what is orthodox and how would it be determined? What penalties would be prescribed for heresy?
The church has the power of excommunication. One of our goals is to reform the church so that it becomes more uniform in doctrine and practices church discipline. This would be accomplished by advocating creedal orthodoxy (i.e., the patristic creeds of the church: Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon). Beyond this we would like to see every church voluntarily adopt a confessional statement which outlines their theological views; their form of government; and other beliefs. We stand for a great deal of liberty in this -- the freedom to disagree on the "non-essentials." However, we believe that Protestantism with its emphasis on the sovereignty of God and salvation by grace through faith, will become more widespread in the world as time goes on. The Holy Spirit accomplishes this in men's hearts. It is not imposed externally, but comes by internal revelation through the Word of God.
5. How would Christian Reconstructionism define "freedom of religion"? Is it an "inalienable right" to be protected by the government?
Any person -- Jew, Moslem, Catholic, Protestant -- would be free in a Biblically Reconstructed society under the civil law to worship. The civil government has no power to restrict religion. The civil government has an obligation to see that all people obey the moral law as it falls into civil jurisdiction. Thus religious expressions which contradict the Ten Commandments would not be publicly tolerated. The domain of the church is to preach truth. Because Reconstructionists are postmillennialists, we believe that eventually, organized false religions will become rare, if not extinct. This will be accomplished mainly through the efforts of the church, not the state.
6. Are you saying that all of the moral laws of the Old Testament are applicable to modern society? What about Old Testament laws that require stoning, such as Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called "harshness" of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant was just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? Has God changed? No! Has the Law changed? Jesus said: Not one jot! Therefore I ask: Why not now? Perhaps the problem is with us and not with the law?
However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one's parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment -- death -- is threatened.
In the United States of America, in this century, there were laws on the books in some states that said that a thief could be put to death for repeat offenses. This goes beyond what the Bible prescribes, but we see the same principle at work -- capital punishment for incorrigibility.
Rebellion against one's parents is listed together with the most heinous crimes in Romans. In this case, if he persisted in his rebellion against God, it would be the responsibility of the civil elders to deal with him. Isn't it likely that such a rebel would ultimately be put on trial for some other capital offense and be put to death?
The family is one of God's governmental units. Rebellion against the government is commensurate to treason. Today, we have no problem with seeing treason against the civil government as a capital crime. The problem is that we have a low view of the family today. The family is actually a higher form of government than the state and deserves greater protection. Rebellion against the family is an expression of rebellion against God's first established form of government and therefore against God himself.
Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. Sound harsh? Then what you are saying, in effect, is that God is harsh and that treason against the family is "not as bad" as treason against the state.
Jay Rogers is the editor of The Forerunner International, a full-sized newspaper dealing with Christian worldview. Jay is the founder of the Russian language newspaper, Predvestnik, ("The Forerunner") in Kiev, Ukraine, a newspaper for and by Ukrainian and Russian Christian activists, pastors, and scholars. Jay is the president of Media House International, a Christian foundation which trains young people to produce Christian media. The goal of MHI is to influence young leaders around the world, so they in turn, will one day influence millions. To receive a monthly newsletter which describes the progress of our ministry, write: Media House International, P.O. Box 362173, Melbourne, FL 32936-2173.
All donations to Media House International are tax-deductible.
Could you be a bit more explicit about what theonomists believe? ...
See below.
Your description could easily fit some Seventh-Day Adventists, ...
Not really. SDA teaches that the seventh day sabbath is still to be observed. Theonomists do not. We believe the first day of teh week is teh Lord's day, aka the Christian Sabbath (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith XXI.7). Also, most theonomists (with the notable exception of Rushdoony) do not subscribe to the OT food laws (or clothing laws, etc.) since they recognize them as relating to the OT ceremonial law which was abrogated in Christ (cf Westminster Confession, XIX.3).
and the the belief that the new Israel is the Christian Church is pretty standard theology, except among a few dispensationalist Protestant groups that follow the teachings of Darby, Schofield & co.
Supersessionism is part of the historic Christian faith, but denied by Scofieldism.
[I wrote the following paper as part of our church session's (body of elders) study into the matter of Christian Reconstruction. It's may be a bit heavy for those not familiar with Reformed/Presbyterian theology. If you have questions please contact me.]
Christian Reconstruction by Tom Albrecht
This paper is intended to outline my understanding of Christian Reconstruction. It is not a definitive or exhaustive treatment of the subject. That would require many volumes. It is also not an unbiased assessment. I make no apologies for the fact that I am sympathetic with the general principles of Christian Reconstruction. However, I will endeavor to present factual information, and label opinion as such.
Among many sincere Christians, Christian Reconstruction is viewed as a deviant and devious theology. Reconstructionist have been called "legalists," "anti-Semites," "new age humanists," and even "heretics" by anti-Reformed Christians.[1] Of course, we would expect Arminians, Anabaptists, and Dispensationalists to be doctrinally at odds with Reformed Christians over matters central to the Christian faith; the basic unity of Scripture and God's salvation plan.
Unfortunately, the harsh criticism has not been limited to the non-Reformed camp. Many Reformed Christians have also been quite vocal in their criticism of Christian Reconstruction. Some of the criticism has been helpful and welcome. It has helped Reconstructionists think more seriously about the way they interpret the Bible, and apply God's law to our situation today.[2] But at the same time opposition has come from semi-informed individuals who are reacting against misinformation, or worse yet no information, about the basic teachings of Christian Reconstruction. My general impression is that there exists an almost irrational fear of Christian Reconstruction within the body of Christ. I'm afraid such appears to be the situation here at Immanuel.
If Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy is so much at odds with the Word of God and the Westminster Standards, then it should be an easy task for critics to demonstrate that fact.
Christian Reconstruction is Theonomic
Reformed Christians believe God's law is an essential part of Christian life. The unison reading of the Ten Commandments is a regular part of many Presbyterian and Reformed worship services. Unlike Dispensationalists and other non-Reformed Christians, we believe the Ten Commandments contain a summary of universal moral law[3] applicable to all people in all ages.[4]
Theonomy comes from two Greek words and means, simply, God's law. God's revealed law is the only perfect basis for just regulations in every human institution; family, church, and state. The so-called "natural law" is insufficient for dealing with the issues of society, because natural law is basically pagan in origin. Natural law is based on the premise that humans are perfectible and can produce a just law code without direct reference to the revelation of God.[5]
Jesus Christ - King of kings
The leaders of all civil institutions are obligated to obey God in their official dealings. Justice is not something inherent in man after the fall. Justice is something found in the revelation of God Almighty. Men may not ignore that law without serious consequences.[6] Unfortunately, many Christians believe that government institutions must be neutral towards religion. This is the myth of state separation from things godly - the myth of neutrality. Government cannot be neutral toward Almighty God. Government official are "ministers of God for good" (Romans 13:4). Civil government, just like individuals, is responsible to order its affairs according to God's holy revelation. To do otherwise leads invariably to social suicide.
The result of American Christians passively accepting the myth of neutrality is a government hostile to God and the Christian religion. Christians have abdicated their responsibility to call government to accountability.
Christian Reconstructionists believe that the Church must proclaim the need for government to be faithful to its mandate before God and Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Psalm 47:8; Revelation 19:16.
Theonomy's Critics
Theonomy has been misrepresented by critics, both Reformed and non-Reformed. A common misrepresentation is that theonomists hold to a slavish, wooden view of the judicial law of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Theonomists have written extensively on the law of God, outlining its richness, and showing the useful application of its features and principles. Such extensive writing would hardly be necessary if a simplistic "wooden" interpretation is all that theonomists require.[7] At least Vern Poythress recognizes that published theonomists do not hold to such a wooden view of the law. He writes:
"Bahnsen instructs us to examine patiently the particular texts, and warns us of the complexities involved. Popularized theonomy needs to pay attention."[8]
Earlier in his monograph, Poythress had these glowing words for one of the general principles of theonomy:
"We may start with one of the theses of theonomy. God's word is the proper standard for evaluating all human action, including the actions of government officials and laws made by civil legislators. This particular thesis deserves the support of all Christians, for a very good reason. Confessing the lordship of God necessarily implies bowing to his will and realizing that he, rather than any human being, is the sovereign, all-wise judge of the world."[9]
Theonomy is often misrepresented as teaching that the judicial laws of God should be the exclusive basis for modern civil law. This is simply not true. As Gary DeMar has written:
"'Generally, the movement's proponents hold that the civil laws of the Old Testament, theocratic Israel are normative for all societies in all times.' We believe it is more correct to insist that the whole Bible is normative. This implies that considering how to apply the Old Testament laws, we must also consider the implications of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile. There are elements of continuity and discontinuity between covenants, and we cannot afford to ignore either. And, if we affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, how can we in good conscience ignore its teachings in any area of life?"[10]
The divisions in the law
It must be noted that our Confession makes a distinction between moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws (WCF XIX 3,4). Unfortunately, we do not have "red letter" editions of the Bible to make this distinction obvious. It is only by careful examination of "scripture with scripture" that we can convincingly determine into which category a particular law might fall. Believe it or not, we might even disagree on the nature of particular laws. We might also discover that a particular law comes under more than one heading. Rape, for example, is a moral evil, but specific commandments forbidding rape are only found in what has been traditionally called the "judicial law" of Israel. Does this mean that rape is an acceptable form of behavior under the new covenant, or punishable only by an ecclesiastical court? The same is true for situations involving bestiality, "just weights and measures," etc.
The theocracy of Israel - separation of church and state
The argument has been made that the judicial law was limited to old covenant Israel because there was no separation of church and state under the old covenant.[11] This is plainly a false assertion. Even a casual reading of the law of the old covenant reveals that "alien and sojourners" in Israel (the non-circumcised) were required to keep the judicial law (Lev. 24:22). On the other hand, aliens were not required to keep certain ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic code (Ex. 12:43,44,48; 9:33; Deut. 14:21). Of special interest is the fact that only the circumcised were allowed to participate in the Passover, the old covenant communion meal. The two "marks of the church" of the old covenant separated the "church" from the "state." Also, there is a distinction made between the "lawyers" of the ceremonial law (the Levites) and the "lawyers" of the civil law (the elders and judges) (Lev. 14:35; 27:11; Deut. 1:16; 16:18; 19:12; 21:2; 25:1).
One of the consequences of a inaccurate view of separation of church and state is the inappropriate mixture of "grace and law." The primary purpose of the church is to be a minister of God's grace in the world. By bringing the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, we offer the hope that only repentence and faith can bring to a life of sin. The church has been entrusted with the keys of the kingdom and the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, in order to carry out that mission. The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state.
In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the "gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence.
The Westminster Standards
The Westminster Standards are theonomic documents.[12] They teach the superiority of God's moral law as a standard for all men, binding both saved and lost (WCF, XIX.5). They teach that the ten commandments are but a summary of the moral law of God, just as the "two great commandments" are also a summary of the moral law of God. The Larger Catechism says:
Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mt. Sinai, and written by Him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man [emphasis mine].
General equity
Regarding the judicial law of God, the Confession say the following:
XIX.4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
In order to understand the phrase "general equity thereof may require" we need to examine the rest of the Confession and Catechisms to see how the Westminster divines used the judicial law, especially as it relates to the civil magistrate.
XXIV.4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by the law of any man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.
The scripture proofs for this paragraph include New Testament teaching (1 Cor. 5:1; Mark 6:18) as well as a quote from Leviticus 18:24-28:
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit its iniquity upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, who [were] before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land may not vomit you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nations that [were] before you.
This passage from Leviticus 18 is interesting because it seems to teach that God was about to punish the Canaanite nations because they violated the moral proscriptions found in the judicial law given to Israel. The warning to Israel was that they must not follow in the footsteps of their Canaanite neighbors.
How do we determine what are the referenced "degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word" without reference to the so-called "judicial laws" of God? Without reference to such, we would have no basis by which to judge various forms of incest.
The theonomic character of the Westminister Standards comes out as we examine the Catechisms, especially Questions 98 through 148 of the Larger Catechism. E.g., under Q. 136 on the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment, the distinction is made between murder and "necessary defence" by appealing to the judicial law (Ex. 22:2,3).
Not all sin is crime, i.e., punishable by civil authorities. But for the civil magistrate to punish as a crime that which is not sin is unjust. The only infallible standard for determining criminal behavior is the law of God. It is appropriate to differentiate between murder and manslaughter since the word of God does in the judicial law. Murder requires the death penalty (Gen. 9:6; Lev. 24:17), while manslaughter does not (Num. 35:11ff). It would be unjust for a society to pass laws that confuse this biblical distinction.
Whatever the term "general equity" means in the original, there seems to be no reason why theonomists cannot fully subscribe to the intention of the statement in the Confession.
Conclusion
In chapter 14 of Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, Sinclair B. Ferguson examines the background of the members of the Westminster assembly. He asks, "Were they Theonomists?" Ferguson concludes that they were not, at least not in the specific sense that modern theonomists use the term. However, he makes the point that many of the assembly members were not adverse to using principles found in the judicial law of Israel to apply to circumstances of the day. What Ferguson apparently objects to is the strawman argument that theonomists wish to apply the judicial laws "simpliciter".[13]
He concludes by affirming that the statements of the Westminster standards are broad enough to encompass modern theonomists. While Westminster may not have been an assembly of theonomists, modern theonomists certainly should feel comfortable embracing the product of their efforts. Ferguson concludes by saying:
"Can the present-day debaters of the theonomy issue learn anything from their forefathers, the Westminster Divines? Perhaps they can, for here were men of great learning and passionate conviction, who were generally speaking subscribers to generic Calvinism, engaged in untold hours of discussion and debate. Uniformity was their goal. But it is evident from the from the way in which they achieved it that the spirit of their Calvinism was inclusive rather than exclusive. Unity in the church of God, they believed, required a sufficiently clear statement of truth to exclude manifestly false teaching, and a sufficiently broad expression of its nuances to avoid excluding those who were in heart and head truly orthodox, whatever differences might remain."[14]
Allow me to offer two closing quotes that I believe could be made by any modern theonomist.
Princeton theologian A. A. Hodge wrote:
"If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or death. If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health; and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy His favour. If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if He, the 'Lord, the Giver of life,' be absent, then all order is impossible, and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos."[15]
The distinguished Southern Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell requested that the Constitution of the Confederate States contain the following statement:
"Nevertheless, we, the people of the Confederate States, distinctly acknowledge our responsibility to God, and the supremacy of his Son, Jesus Christ, as King of kings and Lord of lords; and hereby ordain that no law shall be passed by the Congress of these Confederate States inconsistent with the will of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures."[16]
I beleive this is what the movement called Theonomy is all about.
Tom Albrecht
Notes:
1 Gary North and Gary DeMar, _Christian Reconstruction: What it Is, What it Isn't_ (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), p. 3. The most vocal critics from outside reformed circles have been Dispensationalist authors Hal Lindsey, Dave Hunt, Wayne House, and Tommy Ice. Lindsey has said, "This is the most anti-Semitic movement I've seen since Hitler."
2 In _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, (Grand Rapids: Academie Books/Zondervan, 1991), several of the authors presented useful assessments of certain aspects of Reconstruction. In my opinion, the best portion of the book was the postscript written by D. Clair Davis. Dr. Davis wrote, "If theonomy did not exist, someone would have to invent it. Christians need all the help they can get in understanding what the Bible has to say about God's pattern for society. There have been far too many generalities and platitudes; the more specific the information believers can get from the Bible, the better they can do what God expects of them. It is not easy to apply the details of the civil law of the Bible from the period of promise to our age of fulfillment, but Christians are called to act upon their conviction that 'all Scripture is profitable.'"
3 cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 98.
4 A notable exception was Donald Grey Barnhouse who reportedly said, "It was a tragic hour when the reformation churches wrote the Ten Commandments into their creeds and catechisms and sought to bring Gentile believers into bondage to a Jewish law, which was never intended either for the Gentile nations or for the church." Quoted by Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart in _The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey's The Road to Holocaust_ (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989), p. 24.
5 Norman Geisler, a Dispensationalist, has written, "Government is not based on special revelation, such as the Bible." Quoted in North and DeMar, _Christian Reconstruction: What it Is, What it Isn't_, p. 108. Many non-Reformed Christians are uncomfortable with the suggestion that God's revealed law is a desirable basis for human law and "secular" institutions.
6 The serious consequences are found all around us today; abortion on demand, euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, child abuse, racism, and a bloated, resource-consuming government at all levels. What we are experiencing today is what you get when a society rejects the revealed law of God as a standard for righteous living.
7 R.J. Rushdoony's _The Institutes of Biblical Law_ is 1600 pages in two volumes. Gary North's _Tools of Dominion_ on the Exodus case laws is over 1200 pages.
8 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 121. Unfortunately Poythress gives us no clue as to what constitutes "popularized theonomy." Could it be a strawman invention?
9 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 111.
10 Gary DeMar, in a letter to Christianity Today, April 21, 1989.
11 O. Palmer Robertson and Meredith Kline use this critique. For a critique of Kline's intrusionist approach to interpreting the old covenant, see Poythress's article in _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_.
12 Greg Bahnsen says, "Even as hostile an opponent as Meredith Kline concedes that the theonomic view was that of the Westminster Confession of Faith." No Other Standard, p. 10. In Comments on an Old-New Error, Kline makes the following statement, "At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon [i.e., theonomy] is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. In is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith -- at least in the Confession's original formulations. ... Ecclesiastical courts operating under the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems, therefore, if they should be of a mind to bring the Chalcedon aberration under their judicial scrutiny." p. 173.
13 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 344,345.
14 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 349.
15 _Evangelical Theology_, quoted in The Counsel of Chalcedon, Feb/Mar 1993, p. 2.
16 _Collect Writings_, IV 556, quoted by Morton Smith in _Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology_, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962, p. 178.
Path: christian
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
From: Tom Albrecht <tca1@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com>
Subject: More on Christian Reconstruction and Theonomy
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Malvern, PA
Reply-To: tca1@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu
Christian Reconstruction, Part 2
Continuity and discontinuity
It is a basic Reformed hermeneutical principle which stresses continuity between the older and new manifestations of the covenant of grace. We call this covenant theology. For example, we see infant baptism is a "good and necessary consequence" of the basic continuity between the sacrament under the old covenant and the sacrament under the new covenant. While there is no explicit command in the New Testament to say children should be baptized, we do so because of the continuity principle. Those who stress discontinuity are more prone to see infant baptism as a human tradition. The Dispensationalist posits a hermeneutics of discontinuity - e.g., Israel vs. the Church, law vs. grace - as the starting point, and then launches into textural analysis based on that principle. Such an approach to interpretation is absolutely antithetical to Reformed/convenantal theology.
Dispensationalists have a theology of discontinuity. They like to make much of the fact that the law of God is "written on our hearts" in support of the discontinuity plank in their hermeneutical platform. The suggestion is that "the law of God in our hearts" and "serving God from our hearts" are conditions unique to the post-Pentecost believer, and therefore they validate the hermeneutics of discontinuity. The Word of God actually paints a somewhat different picture.
"And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:" (Deut 6:5,6)
"Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes." (Deut. 11:18)
"And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law." (Deut. 32:46)
"And the king [Josiah] stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant." (2 Kings 23:3)
"And like unto him [Josiah] was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him." (2 Kings 23:25)
"Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." (Psalm 119:11)
"Receive, I pray thee, the law from His mouth, and lay up His words in thine heart." (Job 22:22)
God has always written His law on the hearts of His children. True religion is internal religion externalized. What is written on our hearts eventually comes out. "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God." "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart, The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good;..." "But the things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, ..." The fact that God wrote the His law on the hearts of His old covenant saints did not keep Him from providing a detailed, written code as a reminder. We have the same benefit. The written Word of God goes hand-in-hand with the Word written on our hearts. A logical conclusion of the "law written on our hearts" approach might be that we no longer need the Bible at all.
Theonomists freely acknowledge certain discontinuities between old and new covenants. The ceremonial aspect of certain laws as pointing to Christ, and being "fulfilled" in Him, is one obvious discontinuity. But theonomists argue that the only way to determine what continues and what doesn't is to examine the Bible, not to invent a fundamental thesis out of whole clothe and apply it ad hoc while ignoring the apparent deficiencies of such a methodology.
A church under age
The claim by some (cf. O Palmer Robertson, Meredith Kline) is that Israel was a homogeneous entity without church/state distinctions. Even our Confession makes a distinction between Israel "as a Church under age" (XIX.3) and Israel "as a body politic" (XIX.4), and treats the laws which governed each differently. Israel was a nation composed of both "church members" (Jews), and "non-church members" (aliens and sojourners). What separated them were the sacraments; circumcision and Passover. Consequently, the Confession see the laws for the Old Covenant church of Israel as having expired unconditionally, while the laws of the old Covenant state of Israel expired conditionally, i.e., "further than the general equity thereof may require."
There is no suggestion in either the Bible or the Confession that the state today doesn't have the right to make and enforce laws consistent with the "first table" of the Ten Commandments. Blasphemy is still moral evil, and should be considered worthy of criminal sanctions when it disrupts the peace and purity of the land. Many of the Refomers also taught that the magistrate had a duty to enforce the first table of the Law (Calvin's _Institutes_ Book IV Chapter 20; Scottish Presbyterian George Gillespie, one of the divines at the Westminster Assembly).
What is the duty of the state with regard to the "first table"? In his commentary on Romans 13:4, John Murray explains that in the phrase "a minister of God to you for good" Paul has in mind that "good" is referring specifically to the obligation the civil magistrate to promote peace and piety among Christians (Commentary, v. 2, p. 152). He does this by quoting 1 Tim. 2:2, "that we may lead a peaceful and tranquil life in all godliness and gravity." Murray does not see "good" as referring to state-sponsored welfare programs like Medicare, AFDC, government schools, etc. "Good" is strictly understood in terms of providing an environment for Christians to practice their religion in all holiness. Thus, using Murray's definition of the "good", how can a civil magistrate be a promoter of good among Christians if he fails to punish evildoers who blaspheme God or violate the Sabbath? Further, without scriptural justification, it is arbitrary to suggest the laws in the first table are less socially disruptive than the laws in the second.
Thus, the duty to God vs. duty to man criteria for determining the role of the state in enforcing the law of God is arbitrary.
General equity revisited
I dug up some quotes I thought would be helpful when discussing WCF XIX.4.
"The Old Testament also prescribed certain civil laws for the nation of Israel. The details of these laws are not obligatory on other nations, though the principles of equity that underlie them are." (Gordon H. Clark, _What Do Presbyterian Believe? The Westminster Confession: Yesterday and Today_, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965, pp. 183-184)
Later, Clark says this:
"The moral law provides principles for the conduct of our civil affairs. It does not spell out the details, but it sets limits and furnishes norms. For example, II Corinthians 12:14 teaches us those children should not lay up for their parents, but parents for their children. At first this seems to have little to do with national and state law. But does it not follow by good and necessary consequence that a nation should not accumulate an astronomical debt and pass it on to the next generation? The general principle is that each generation should take care of itself and if possible hand on to the next, no debts, but assets. Thus the policy of the United States Government stands condemned as immoral and anti-Christian." (Ibid., pp. 185-186)
Notice how Clark, in the Reformed tradition, does not limit the moral law to the Ten Commandments. He mentions 2 Corinthians 12:14 as the moral principle underlying his condemnation of the US Government policy to increase debt without restraint. While he allows for exceptional cases, war, etc., he recognizes the binding nature of the underlying moral imperative. Also note his reasoning "by good and necessary consequence." This is entirely in keeping with the Confession's view:
WCF I.6 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
What is the theonomic position?
As I mentioned in our time together, there is some difficulty in responding to specific statements by the opponents of theonomy due to the fact that very often their arguments are based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Usually the source of a quote is secondary and lacks critical context. I have encountered a similar approach - selective use of quoted material - by Arminian authors who attack the works of Reformed writers.
Take the example of the charge that by the phrase "binding in exhaustive detail" means theonomists believe that the judicial law must be brought into any and every socio-political setting without modification. Absent some additional analysis based on the writings of theonomists, it is impossible to determine whether such a charge is true or false. It is obvious to me, based on our discussions, that this charge, as presented by the opponents of theonomy, is false. It is false because the opponents apparently take the phase in a way that was not intended by the author.
So what do theonomists mean when they make such a statement? Obviously in order to answer that question it is necessary to actually read what theonomists have written. Greg Bahnsen, for example, has written several books on the subject, so his position should be no mystery to any of us. He urges his reader to go through his arguments very carefully with Bible in hand so that the listed Scripture passages can be read in context (_Theonomy in Christian Ethics_, p. xxxi). He asks his readers to act like "noble Bereans" as they "search the scripture to see if these things are so." It distresses me greatly that the critics of the theonomic position have not had the common courtesy to do what Bahnsen asks. It is also my opinion that critics who have neither the time nor the inclination to perform the required work have absolutely no business being involved in critical analysis. And they certainly shouldn't be offering their views for public consumption. The Christian commitment to truth, especially when the reputation of brothers in Christ is at stake, demands hard work! It is altogether too easy to hurt someone by the indiscriminate use of the tongue, no matter how well-intentioned we may be (cf. James 1:26; 3:5,6).
Having said that, allow me to offer some insight and quotes in order for us to get a better picture of the theonomic view.
Simply put, theonomists hold that the moral commandments of God, as found in His revealed Word, are binding on all men in all ages (cf. WCF XIX.5). The moral commandments are eternal precisely because they reflect God's character who is unchanging (Psalm 15:4; Heb. 13:8). These moral commandments are summarized in the Ten Commandments, but are found expressed in various forms throughout the rest of Scripture. Matthew Henry writes concerning Leviticus 18:
"After divers ceremonial institutions, God here returns to the enforcement of moral precepts. The former are still of use to us as types, the latter are binding as laws." (Matthew Henry's Commentary in One Volume, p. 131)
In the introduction to chapter 19, Henry says, "The laws of this chapter which were peculiar to the Jews are, 1. ... ," then proceeds to comment on verses 1 through 29. However, regarding verses 30 and following he says,
"But, II. Most of these precepts are binding on us, for they are expositions of the Ten Commandments. 1. Here is the preface to the ten commandments, 'I am the Lord,' repeated fifteen times. 2. A sum of the ten commandments. ..." (Ibid., p. 132)
The Ten Commandments, in isolation, do not teach that "lust in the heart" is a form of adultery. That is because they are but a summary of the moral law of God. Thus, the true moral character of the law is only rightly understood by considering what the rest of the Bible, in this case Matthew 5:27,28, has to say on the subject. Since the judicial law is part of the Bible, it also is "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, ..." (2 Tim. 3:16), and must also be given due consideration. As Jesus told Satan, "As it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3).
What do theonomists say about the law?
"God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations)" (Greg Bahnsen, _No Other Standard_, p. 12).
Please notice the qualification in Bahnsen's statement; "absolute in the sense". The theonomic view is that the moral principles embodied in the judicial law are still "binding" simply because they reflect God's perfect standard of righteousness. They are part of the moral law, which our Confession says all men are bound to obey. Those moral principle are "applicable to general types of moral situations." While I agree that the judicial law as it was applied in Israel has "expired", it is my opinion that the "general equity" clause allows this view of the use of the underlying moral principles in the judicial code. Otherwise the "general equity" clause is a useless appendage to the paragraph, and should be elided by amending the Confession.
"The New Testament is the interpretative guide in determining how all of God's law should apply." (North and DeMar, _Christian Reconstruction: What it is, what it isn't_ p. 87).
"Certainly there is much work to be done to determine exactly how to apply Biblical law to a modern world. There is some disagreement even among those of us who identify with the Reconstructionist position. The principle that binds us, however, is that we all believe the whole Bible, Old and New Testament, must be the source of ethics for human institutions which God has ordained for man's good." (Mark Duncan, _Five Points of Christian Reconstruction from the Lips of Our Lord_, p. 18)
"We believe it is more correct to insist that the whole Bible is normative. This implies that considering how to apply the Old Testament laws, we must also consider the implications of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile. There are elements of continuity and discontinuity between covenants, and we cannot afford to ignore either. And, if we affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, how can we in good conscience ignore its teachings in any area of life?" (Gary DeMar, in a letter to Christianity Today, April 21, 1989)
"Theonomists maintain that the Mosaic code and regulations contain some items which are not based upon necessary moral principles, but rather God's sovereign good pleasure; as such they are not binding in all ages and upon all cultures - items which must be distinguished and identified on the basis of Scriptural teaching. The other Mosaic regulations and precepts communicate God's unchanging moral principles - and indeed are identical to those precepts which correspond to the divine moral principles learned through general revelation." (Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, _House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology_, pp. 92-93)
"Theonomists accept the general breakdown of the Mosaic law into the categories of moral, judicial, and ceremonial - despite having some reservations about misleading terminology (e.g., "ceremonial" might better be called redemptive or restorative) and having strong objection to the a priori way which some people impose the scheme upon the Old Testament text. Essentially, this category-scheme will be of no general help to the interpreter as he approaches any particular text; its value is simply that of a retrospective summary device, after doing the necessary exegesis and application of specific passages in the law." (Ibid. p. 97)
To summarize; with regard to the law theonomists teach that that which was temporary has passed away, and that which is binding and eternal remains. How do we decide which laws were temporary and which ones are eternal?
"The theonomic answer has always been: not some a priori principle imposed from outside the text of Scripture, but precisely painstaking and detailed Scriptural exegesis. We do have, after all, the great advantage of the New Testament and its commentary upon the Old. With the coming of the New Covenant revelation which helps us understand even better the meaning and purpose of Old Covenant commands, the cogency and necessity of something like the moral/judicial/ceremonial distinction becomes all the more apparent. It accounts for Paul's insistence on submission to case-law ("civil") provisions of the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:18), but refusal to see other ("ceremonial") laws as obligatory (e.g., Gal. 2:3; 5:2,6). Even if these distinctions were somehow obscured in the Old Testament, theonomists believe that New Testament revelation provides criterion and guide by which we can see with adequate clarity today the difference between laws that have been put out of gear (by Christ redemptive work) and laws whose validity is reinforced by Christ (whether expressed in terms of broad principle or cultural illustration)." (Ibid., pp. 100-101)
In short, we decide by studying the Bible. This answer may be too simplistic for some, but to offer an answer based on a priori principles established in advance of actually studying the relevant passages places human reasoning and presuppositions above the Word of God. Such an approach embraces a form of idolatry.
Tom Albrecht
Dominion Theology By Gary E. Gilley, Pastor-teacher of Southern View Chapel
There is a movement about that is casting a long shadow for its size. It is known by different handles such as reconstructionism, kingdom theology, theonomy, and dominion theology, and it is a curious blend of Reformed/Calvinist theology and Charismatic influence. While there are relatively few who would call themselves reconstructionists, a number of the movement's ideas have infiltrated the thinking and actions of many believers, often without them knowing it. The movement is led by such theologians as Rousas J. Rusdoony; Gary North; Ray Sutton; Greg Bahnsen; David Chiltion, and by Charismatic leaders such as Earl Paulk. But their ideas are often reflected by non-reconstructionists such as Pat Robertson, John Whitehead, Franky Schaeffer, and even Jerry Falwell.
A DEFINITION Dominion theology (the belief-system behind the reconstructionist movement) teaches that through the coming of Christ the believer has dominion over every area of life. We are now in the Kingdom of God (note the similar view of the Kingdom that the Vineyard movement takes, as well as the plethora of Christian songs being written implying that we are in the Kingdom at the present time) and as a result we should be reigning with Christ over the earth as Rev 5:10 says. The question is when will we reign. If the Kingdom is on earth now then we should have dominion now! Right? Don't many of us proclaim this thought when we sing the popular Charismatic song "Majesty" which invites us to, "Come glorify Christ Jesus, the King," after all, "Kingdom authority flows from His throne unto His own." With this authority from the King we are to reclaim the earth for Christ, not just spiritually, but socially, economically (it is no accident that one of the reconstructionist's organizations is called, The Institute for Christian Economics) and politically. The dominion of the earth is accomplished not only through prayer and evangelism, but through the political process, and social reformation. Christ will not return to earth until the church has accomplished this task.
THE DOCTRINES
More specifically, what does Dominion Theology teach? Here are the highlights:
The OT Law is our rule of life for today. Although DT teaches that keeping of the Law is not a condition for salvation, it is a condition for sanctification. In addition, the OT Law is to govern over society as well. Since we are called to subdue the earth (Gen 1:28), God's Law should rule (or dominate) all aspects of society. This view is known as theonomy (or God's law), and is described by Greg Bahnsen as, "The Christian is obligated to keep the whole law of God as a pattern for sanctification and that this law is to be enforced by the civil magistrate" (Theonomy p34). This would mean that Christians would be obligated to keep the whole OT Law except in a case in which the NT explicitly cancels a command, such as the sacrificial system.
A central piece of DT is its belief in covenant theology. As a result it makes no distinction between the church and Israel. However DT goes beyond traditional covenant theology and teaches that the church is to be governed by the same laws, is subject to the same curses, and is promised the same blessings as Israel.
DT teaches a high level of social and political activism. If the Kingdom of God is to gradually take dominion over the earth, it only makes sense that Christians should be attempting to change society through the changing of laws and through social action.
Followers of DT, like many Charismatics, especially the Latter Rain movement, looks for a great end time revival in which the masses will turn to Christ. As a result DT does not believe in the rapture. The world should be, and is becoming, a better place through the efforts of Christians.
As with many others who follow the teachings of George Ladd, DT believes that we are in the Kingdom age, but the Kingdom in another sense is yet to come. We are in the Kingdom, and have Kingdom authority, but on the other hand, we are ushering in the Kingdom through our efforts. "The Kingdom is now, but not yet," is a popular slogan.
DT is postmillennial. It is believed that as a result of the reconstruction of society by Biblical principles that the final aspect of the Kingdom of God will be established on earth. Christ cannot return until a certain amount of dominion is achieved by the church. It is believed that the curse will slowly be removed as the world is won over. Even disease and death will be all but eliminated before Christ returns to the earth.
DT is preterist in its interpretation of prophecy. This means that they teach that virtually all prophecies which most Christians believe are still future, have in fact been fullfilled already, mainly between the years A.D. 30 and 70. In David Chilton's book, Days of Vengeance he says that the book of Revelation , "Is not about the Second Coming of Christ. It is about the destruction of Israel and Christ's victory over His enemies" (during the first century) (p43).
DT uses an allegorical hermeneutic, especially in reference to prophecy. So we find that the Great Tribulation took place at the fall of Israel in A.D. 70; the Antichrist refers to the apostasy of the Church prior to the fall of Jerusalem; the Beast of Revelation was Nero and the Roman Empire, etc.
AN EVALUATION
Space does not permit a detailed critique of DT (see Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? by Thomas Ice and Robert Dean if deeper study is desired). However, we would like to comment on the most important distinctive of DT - its belief in theonomy. DT teaches that Christians are under the Law as a way of life, and are obligated to ultimately bring the world under that Law. This concept is based on several passages. First, Gen 1:28 commands Adam to subdue the earth. Adam lost his ability to do so to Satan as a result of sin. The church should now be in the process of reclaiming from the devil what Adam lost. You will note a hint of the Spiritual Warfare movement here (see our paper Vol I #6-8). Secondly, the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20) commands the the followers of Christ to disciple all nations, which we are told, goes beyond personal salvation and sanctificiation to the reformation of society.
Finally, Matt 5:17-19 is the passage upon which the system hinges. DT claims that the word "fulfill" actually means "confirm." Thus Christ did not in any sense fulfill, or complete, or do away with the Law, rather he confirmed it as our rule of life today. It should be mentioned at this point that the normal and best translation of plerosai is "fulfill" not "confirm." Besides this however, we have the weight of the NT teaching concerning the Law. The epistles clearly teach that believers are no longer under the Law of Moses (Rom 6:14; 7:6; 8:2-4; Gal 3:24,25; 5:18) having been set free from that bondage to serve under grace and the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).
And besides, if the Christian is still under Law why do we not keep the OT ceremonial laws? DT's answer is that the Law was divided into three sections: civil, moral and ceremonial. The ceremonial law, it is claimed, has been fulfilled by Christ and is no longer incumbent upon the believer, but not so the moral and civil parts of the law. Therefore, we are to live under the moral law and seek to establish, in our society, the civil system of OT Israel. The problem with this view is that nowhere in the Bible is the Law broken into these three sections, this is something invented by men. Whenever the Law is mentioned the Scriptures are speaking of the whole Law as a unit. The Jews were as obligated to keep the sacrificial system and commandments concerning food and dress (ceremonial law) as they were the Ten Commandments (moral law). If the NT says that Christ fulfilled the Law, and that as Christians we are no longer under the Law, it means the whole Law. Church age saints are no longer obligated to any aspect of the OT Law. No one has the right to arbitrarily claim that we have been set free from some of the Law (the parts we don't like) but that the rest of the Law is obligatory. Either the believer has been released from the whole Law (Rom 7:4,6) or none of it. As Thomas Ice reminds us, "The Law of Moses was given to a specific people (Israel), to be followed in a specific location (the land of Israel), to deal with their specific situation. Therefore, the Law cannot simply be obeyed today by the Church, as was expected of Israel when it was given to that nation" (Biblical Perspectives Vol II #6). On the positive side Ice comments, "Paul teaches in Galatians 3 and 4 that Christ has set us free from the bondage of the Law, not so that we can be lawless as the Reconstructionists insist, instead, so that we can walk in the newness of the motivation of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid p2).
APPLICATION
What negative effects are the teachings of DT having on evangelical Christianity today. We would mention several:
Reconstructionists teach that the mission of the church goes beyond the spiritual transformation of individuals to a mandate to change society. For Christ to be pleased with Christians they must become political and social activists. We must change the laws of the land, gear up to elect Christians to office, and generally seek to take dominion over our world and bring it under the Law of Moses. We see the influence of this thinking even in those who may know little about DT: James Dobson, Larry Burkett, The Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Promise Keepers, Charles Colson and the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, Operation Rescue, are but a few of the evidences that reconstructionist thinking is beginning to dominate the evangelical world.
Motivation for godly living, based upon the blessed hope: the return of Christ (Titus 2:16), is replaced with the task of restructuring society. This is a task that may take thousands of years, even by the DT's own admission.
If we are in the Kingdom of God now then the Charismatics are right to teach that health and prosperity is the right of believers today. This is why "Reconstruction" Calvinists and "Kingdom Now" Charismatics have formed at least a loose unity - they both have the same world view. They are not looking for Christ to return and set up His Kingdom, they are attempting to set it up for Him.
What About Dominion Theology? Pastor Phil Gaines
Bellevue Christian Center
Bellevue, Washington
Intro:
-This message will communicate in more detail what I have said
about the question of whether we can expect the kingdom of God to
take over the world in a political, social, and ethical sense
before the return of the Lord.
-This comes in response to a current emphasis on the theology of
dominion.
1. The essence of dominion theology
The entire world is destined to eventually succumb to the reign
of God in every area of life by a gradual process. The church
will rise up as the spiritual army of God and, through the
process of spiritual warfare, will defeat all the forces of
darkness, bringing the entire world under the dominion of God and
his kingdom. Government, culture, society, ethics, religion--
everything and everyone will submit to the reign of God. The
earth will become the full expression of the kingdom of God.
Mt 6:10 Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it
is in heaven.
Two problems with the interpretation of this verse:
a. The kingdom has come and will continue to come according to
certain parameters which do not allow for dominion theology.
b. The will of God on earth, as detailed prophetically in
scripture, does not allow for dominion theology.
2. The Lord is already king of all the earth; he doesn't have to
take over politically for that to be true.
Ps 103:19 The Lord has established his throne in heaven,
and his kingdom rules over all.
Ps 145:13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and
your dominion endures through all generations.
-But the issue is the way he chooses to express that
kingship/reign/ kingdom.
3. The kingdom of God in this age is spiritual, not natural; not
of this world; within the individual.
Lk 17:20-21 The kingdom of God does not come with careful
observation, not will people say, `Here is is' or
`There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within
[margin - "or `among'"] you.
Jn 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my
servants would fight to prevent my arrest...But
now my kingdom is from another place.
-The kingdom of God always starts with the reign of God in the
individual life. It is not a sphere of control to which
unbelievers submit.
4. The kingdom of God will involve a mixture of good and bad
people right up until the end.
Mt 13:24-30 Parable of the Weeds and Wheat (see also 36-43)
Mt 13:47-50 Parable of the Net
5. The world-wide preaching of the gospel of the kingdom will
take place in the midst of a world that hates and persecutes the
people of God.
Mt 24:4-14 You will be hated by all nations because of
me...This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in
the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then
the end will come.
6. Certain events prophesied to come to pass prior to the return
of Christ prohibit the idea of a world-wide political and social
kingdom of God.
Mt 24:4-14
Lk 21:25-36 When you see these things happening, you know
that the kingdom of God is near. Mt 24:33 Mk 13:29
7. The Bible teaches the emergence and reign of a personal
antichrist just prior to the return of Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:8-12 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom
the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and
destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the
lawless one will be...
8. The book of Daniel teaches a cataclysmic takeover of the
kingdom of God at the end of the age, not a gradual one.
Dan 2:44 The God of heaven will set up a kingdom...it will
crush all those kingdoms...
Dan 7:18 The saints of the Most High will receive the
kingdom
Dan 7:22 The time came when [the saints] possessed the
kingdom
Dan 7:27 The sovereignty, power, and greatness of the
kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the
saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom
will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship
and obey him.
1Co 15:24 When he hands over the kingdom to the Father
after he has destroyed all dominion...
Rev 11:15 The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom
of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever.
9. When Jesus comes the second time, he will come as a warrior,
doing battle with a world in rebellion against him.
2Th 1:6-10 He will punish those who do not know God...
Rev 19:11-21
10. The Millenium will bring an expression of the kingdom
of God that totally encompasses government, culture, society,
ethics, religion.
11. Why is all this important?
a. The importance of understanding truth.
b. The possibility of becoming distracted and side-tracked.
c. The possibility of becoming disillusioned and discouraged.
d. The possibility of losing a sense of the urgency of our
mission.
Abbott Loop Community Church email: lynn@abbottloop.org
Preaching and teaching the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!
907-349-9641 2626 Abbott Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507 USA
Dominion Theology/Kingdom Now/ Reconstructionism Blessing or Curse?*
- There is a movement about that is casting a long shadow for its size. It is known as Reconstructionism, Kingdom Now theology, Theonomy, and/or Dominion theology, and it is a curious blend of Reformed/Calvinist theology and Charismatic influence. While there are relatively few who would call themselves reconstructionists, a number of the movement's ideas have infiltrated the thinking and actions of many professing believers, often without them knowing it. The movement is led by such theologians as Rousas J. Rushdoony; Gary North; Ray Sutton; Greg Bahnsen (deceased); David Chilton, and by Charismatic leaders such as Earl Paulk. But their ideas are often reflected by non-reconstructionists such as Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, John Whitehead, Franky Schaeffer, and Jerry Falwell. [In spite of the fact that many Dominionists-Reconstructionists-Theonomists are hyper-Calvinists, yet at the same time they write and speak as if they believe that they must help God get things under control down here on earth, so that the kingdom (their version of it) can be set up in order that the King Himself can reign properly (through them, of course!).]
- Dominion theology (the belief-system behind the reconstructionist movement) teaches that through the coming of Christ the believer has dominion over every area of life. We are now in the Kingdom of God (note the similar view of the Kingdom that the Vineyard movement takes, as well as the plethora of Christian songs being written implying that we are in the Kingdom at the present time), and as a result, we should be reigning with Christ over the earth (as Rev. 5:10 says). The question is when will we reign. If the Kingdom is on earth now, then we should have dominion now, so say the Dominionists. Many of us non-reconstructionists proclaim this same thought when we sing the popular Charismatic song "Majesty," which invites us to "Come glorify Christ Jesus, the King"--after all, "Kingdom authority flows from His throne unto His own." With this authority from the King we are to reclaim the earth for Christ, not just spiritually, but socially, economically (it is no accident that one of the reconstructionist's organizations is called, The Institute for Christian Economics), and politically. The dominion of the earth is accomplished not only through prayer and evangelism, but through political process and social reformation. [The Dominion/Reconstructionist organization Coalition on Revival (COR) was established for this purpose; more on COR in a companion report.] Christ will not return to earth until the church has accomplished this task.
- Dominion theology is predicated upon three basic beliefs: (a) Satan usurped man's dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve; (b) The Church is God's instrument to take dominion back from Satan; (c) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth's governmental and social institutions. More specifically, what does Dominion Theology (DT) teach? Here are the highlights:
(a) The Old Testament (OT) Law is our rule of life for today. Although DT teaches that keeping of the Law is not a condition for salvation, it is a condition for sanctification. (However, some of the COR's official statements appear to specifically condition salvation upon OT Law-keeping!)
(b) In addition, the OT Law is to govern over society as well. Since we are called to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28), DT teaches that God's Law should rule (or dominate) all aspects of society. This view is known as Theonomy (or God's law), and is described by Greg Bahnsen as, "The Christian is obligated to keep the whole law of God as a pattern for sanctification and that this law is to be enforced by the civil magistrate" (Theonomy, p. 34). This would mean that Christians would be obligated to keep the whole OT Law except in a case in which the New Testament (NT) explicitly cancels a command, such as the sacrificial system.
(c) A central piece of DT is its belief in covenant theology. As a result, it makes no distinction between the church and Israel. However, DT goes beyond traditional covenant theology and teaches that the church is to be governed by the same laws, is subject to the same curses, and is promised the same blessings as Israel.
(d) DT teaches a high level of social and political activism. If the Kingdom of God is to gradually take dominion over the earth, it only makes sense that Christians should be attempting to change society through the changing of laws and through social action.
(e) Followers of DT, like many charismatics, especially the Latter Rain Movement, look for a great end time revival in which the masses will turn to Christ. As a result, DT does not believe in the rapture. According to DT, the world should be, and is becoming, a better place through the efforts of Christians (cf. 2 Thes. 2:1-12).
(f) As with many others who follow the teachings of George Ladd, DT believes that we are in the Kingdom age, but the Kingdom in another sense is yet to come. We are in the Kingdom, and have Kingdom authority, but on the other hand, we are ushering in the Kingdom through our efforts. "The Kingdom is now, but not yet," is a popular slogan.
(g) DT is postmillennial. It is believed that as a result of the reconstruction of society by Biblical principals that the final aspect of the Kingdom of God will be established on earth. Christ cannot return until a certain amount of dominion is achieved by the church. It is believed that the curse will slowly be removed as the world is won over. Even disease and death will be all but eliminated before Christ returns to the earth.
(h) DT is preterist in its interpretation of prophecy. This means that they teach that virtually all prophecies which most Christians believe are still future, have in fact been fulfilled already, mainly between the years A.D. 30 and 70. In David Chilton's book, Days of Vengeance , he says that the book of Revelation, "is not about the Second Coming of Christ. It is about the destruction of Israel and Christ's victory over His enemies [during the first century]" (p. 43).
(i) DT uses an allegorical hermeneutic, especially in reference to prophecy. So we find that the Great Tribulation took place at the fall of Israel in A.D. 70; the Antichrist refers to the apostasy of the Church prior to the fall of Jerusalem; the Beast of Revelation was Nero and the Roman Empire, etc.
- One of the most important distinctives of DT is its belief in theonomy. DT teaches that Christians are under the Law as a way of life, and are obligated to ultimately bring the world under that Law. This concept is based on several passages. First, Gen. 1:28 commands Adam to subdue the earth. Adam lost his ability to do so to Satan as a result of sin. The church should now be in the process of reclaiming from the devil what Adam lost. (You will note a hint of the Spiritual Warfare movement here.) Secondly, the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) commands the followers of Christ to disciple all the nations, which we are told, goes beyond personal salvation and sanctification to the reformation of society.
Matt. 5:17-19 is the passage upon which the system hinges. DT claims that the word "fulfill" actually means "confirm." Thus, Christ did not in any sense fulfill, or complete, or do away with the Law, rather he confirmed it as our rule of life today. The normal and best translation of plerosai is "fulfill" not "confirm." Besides this, however, we have the weight of the NT teaching concerning the Law. The epistles clearly teach that believers are no longer under the Law of Moses (Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:2-4; Gal. 3:24,25; 5:18) having been set free from that bondage to serve under grace and the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2).
And besides, if the Christian is still under Law, why do we not keep the OT ceremonial laws? DT's answer is that the Law was divided into three sections: civil, moral, and ceremonial. The ceremonial law, it is claimed, has been fulfilled by Christ and is no longer incumbent upon the believer, but not so the moral and civil parts of the law. Therefore, we are to live under the moral law and seek to establish, in our society, the civil system of OT Israel. The problem with this view is that nowhere in the Bible is the Law broken into these three sections; this is something invented by men. Whenever the Law is mentioned, the Scriptures are speaking of the whole Law as a unit. The Jews were as obligated to keep the sacrificial system and commandments concerning food and dress (ceremonial law) as they were the Ten Commandments (moral law). If the NT says that Christ fulfilled the Law, and that as Christians we are no longer under the Law, it means the whole Law. Church age saints are no longer obligated to any aspect of the OT Law. No one has the right to arbitrarily claim that we have been set free from some of the Law (the parts we don't like) but that the rest of the Law is obligatory. Either the believer has been released from the whole Law (Rom. 7:4,6) or none of it. [As Thomas Ice reminds us, "The Law of Moses was given to a specific people (Israel), to be followed in a specific location (the land of Israel), to deal with their specific situation. Therefore, the Law cannot simply be obeyed today by the Church, as was expected of Israel when it was given to that nation" (Biblical Perspectives, Vol. II, No. 6). On the positive side Ice comments, "Paul teaches in Galatians 3 and 4 that Christ has set us free from the bondage of the Law, not so that we can be lawless as the Reconstructionists insist, instead, so that we can walk in the newness of the motivation of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid . p. 2).]
- There are many negative effects that the teachings of DT are having on evangelical Christianity today. Four of these would be:
(a) Reconstructionists teach that the mission of the church goes beyond the spiritual transformation of individuals to a mandate to change society, a "moral patriotism," if you will, in opposition to secular humanism. For Christ to be pleased with Christians they must become political and social activists. We must change the laws of the land, gear up to elect Christians to office, and generally seek to take dominion over our world and bring it under the Law of Moses. We see the influence of this thinking even in those who may know little about DT--James Dobson, Larry Burkett, the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Promise Keepers, Charles Colson and the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, and Operation Rescue, are but a few of the evidences that reconstructionist thinking is beginning to dominate the so-called evangelical world.
(b) Motivation for godly living, based upon the blessed hope--the return of Christ (Titus 2:16)--is replaced with the task of restructuring society. This cultural mandate to restructure/restore society is a task that may take thousands of years, even by the DT's own admission (approximately 36,000 years, according to David Chilton).
(c) If we are in the Kingdom of God now, then the Charismatics are correct to teach that health and prosperity is the right of every believer today. This is why "Reconstruction" Calvinists and "Kingdom Now" Charismatics have formed at least a loose unity--they both have the same world view. They are not looking for Christ to return and set up His Kingdom; they are attempting to set it up for Him.
(d) A theological anti-Semitism exists in the Dominionist plan to replace of Old Testament Israel with the Church, often called the "New Israel" (i.e., "replacement theology"--the church replaces the Jews as the new or true Israel, and Israel has no future as a distinct nation within God's plan). They believe that Israel does not have a future different from any other nation. Historically, replacement theology has been the theological foundation upon which anti-Semitism has been built within the confines of Christianity. While reconstructionists do believe that the individual Jews will be converted to Christ in mass in the future, almost none of them believe that national Israel has a future, and thus the Church has completely taken over the promises of national Israel. (Reconstructionist David Chilton said that "ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God's Kingdom. ... the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation." Reconstructionists believe that the Church is now that new nation, which is why Christ destroyed the Jewish state. Reconstructionists DeMar and Leithart have said, "In destroying Israel, Christ transferred the blessings of the kingdom from Israel to a new people, the church."
* Unless otherwise indicated, some of the material in this and companion reports has been excerpted and/or adapted from three sources: (1) "Dominion Theology," Pastor Gary E. Gilley, Southern View Chapel, January, 1996; (2) Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, by Thomas Ice and Robert Dean; and (3) Vengeance Is Ours: The Church in Dominion, by Albert James Dager.
Biblical Discernment Ministries - 1/97
The Creed of Christian Reconstruction by Rev. Andrew Sandlin
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Calvinist. He holds to historic, orthodox, catholic Christianity and the great Reformed confessions. He believes God, not man, is the center of the universe and beyond; God, not man, controls whatever comes to pass; God, not man, must be pleased and obeyed. He believes God saves sinners. He does not help them save themselves. A Christian Reconstructionist believes the Faith should apply to all of life, not just the "spiritual" side. It applies to art, education, technology, and politics no less than to church, prayer, evangelism, and Bible Study.
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Theonomist. Theonomy means "God's law." A Christian Reconstructionist believes God's law is found in the Bible. It has not been abolished as a standard of righteousness. It no longer accuses the Christian, since Christ bore its penalty on the cross for him. But the law is a description of God's righteous character. It cannot change any more than God can change. God's law is used for three main purposes: First, to drive the sinner to trust in Christ alone, the only perfect law-keeper. Second, to provide a standard of obedience for the Christian, by which he may judge his progress in sanctification. And third, to maintain order in society, restraining and arresting civil evil.
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Presuppositionalist. He does not try to "prove" that God exists or that the Bible is true. He holds to the Faith because the Bible says so, not because he can "prove" it. He does not try to convince the unconverted that the gospel is true. They already know it is true when they hear it. They need repentance, not evidence. Of course, the Christian Reconstructionist believes there is evidence for the Faith, in fact, there is nothing but evidence for the Faith. The problem for the unconverted, though, is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of submission. The Christian Reconstructionist begins and ends with the Bible. He does not defend "natural theology," and other inventions designed to find some agreement with covenant-breaking apostate mankind.
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Postmillennialist. He believes Christ will return to earth only after the Holy Spirit has empowered the church to advance Christ's kingdom in time and history. He has faith that God's purposes to bring all nations, though not every individual, in subjection to Christ cannot fail. The Christian Reconstructionist is not utopian. He does not believe the kingdom will advance quickly or painlessly. He knows that we enter the kingdom through much tribulation. He knows Christians are in the fight for the "long haul." He believes the church may yet be in her infancy. But he believes the Faith will triumph. Under the power of the Spirit of God, it cannot but triumph.
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Dominionist. He takes seriously the Bible's commands to the godly to take dominion in the earth. This is the goal of the gospel and the Great Commission. The Christian Reconstructionist believes the earth and all its fullness is the Lord's: that every area dominated by sin must be "reconstructed" in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. The Christian Reconstructionist therefore believes fervently in Christian civilization. He firmly believes in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of the state or anything else from God. He is not a revolutionary; he does not believe in the militant, forced overthrow of human government. He has infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and bombs, he has the invincible Spirit of God, the infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which can fail.
He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph.
Christian Reconstruction : What It Is, What It Isn't by Gary North, Gary Demar Editorial Reviews
The publisher, ICE webmaster@freebooks.com , April 6, 1999
For people who want to understand Christian Reconstruction
"Christian Reconstruction." In 1980, hardly anyone had heard the phrase. By 1990, it was becoming famous-or at least infamous-in American evangelical circles. Even the secular media had begun to pick up on it, most notably Bill Moyers, who devoted an entire Public Broadcasting System television program to the topic.
Christian Reconstruction is a theological system, a movement of independent activists, and a cultural ideal. Its goal is nothing short of transformation of the world. "And they shall build the old wastes, and they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generation" (Isa. 61:4). Isaiah's vision of cultural transformation was recapitulated by Christ, but applied to the whole world through God's church, not just to the kingdom of ancient Israel: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:43). Will the church be successful in presenting God's message? Yes! "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:9). In today's world, Christians have been told that there is nothing they can do to improve society. This idea is the devil's own lie, one that gives him breathing room. They have been told that the world is lawfully governed by neutral principles of ethics, law, and science. Christians have believed this, but the results have been anything but neutral: secular humanism, New Age mysticism, and abortion on demand. In the name of neutrality, Christians have handed the world over to Satan and his covenanted disciples. All they want is a little peace and quiet. But they cannot get it: "For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace: when there is not peace (Jer. 8:11).
Then what about the Great Commission? It is a hopeless goal? "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matt. 28:18-20). Is Jesus powerless? Are his people powerless? Is Jesus' kingdom limited in history to the regenerate heart, the local church, the Christian family, and (maybe) the local Christian day school? Who says so? The humanists do. So do their allies in the churches, the pietists. Reconstructionists ask: "What is the limit of God's offer of redemption?" They answer: "As far as sin extends its unholy reign."
Is Christ's kingdom unreal in history until He comes again to sit on an earthly throne? If so, is Satan's kingdom unreal in history until he comes to sit on an earthly throne? If the second question is ridiculous, then so is the first.
Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't spells out in clear, concise way just what the theology, the movement, and the ideal of Christian Reconstruction really are. It sweeps the systematic misinformation of the secular media and the pietist press regarding this important movement. If you want to know what Christian Reconstruction is, go to the source.
The Debate over Christian Reconstruction by Gary DeMar (Atlanta: American Vision, 1988)
Part 1 of 2 from the forward by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen
FOREWORD
by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen
The recent "debate" over Christian Reconstructionism has been going on for over ten years now. The debate in contemporary Christian circles could actually be pushed back to the early 1970s, with the publication or general recognition of certain probing theological works by R. J. Rushdoony. (Of course, to the extent that Reconstructionist theology is true to God's Word, the debate has been carried on throughout redemptive history, since the time of the fall!) The active and open criticism of Reconstructionist distinctives as such, however, surfaced about a year following the publication of Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977) -- and ironically, surfaced within the context of that theological tradition which has given historical impetus to the Reconstructionist perspective: the circles of Presbyterian and Puritan conviction. The schools of thought, however, which most conspicuously and
naturally stands opposed to Reconstructionist theology is dispensationalism.
Reconstructionism contradicts the dispensationalist view of the Old Testament (which emphasizes discontinuity with the Old Testament ethics) as well as the dispensationalist view of the millennium (which emphasizes discontinuity with the present church age.) Therefore, dispensationalism most clearly and diametrically opposes Reconstructionist distinctives. The first public debate between a Reconstructionist and a dispensationalist took place at the annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting, held in Toronto in 1981. (1) This was an important and insightful interchange between two trained theologians. But I believe that the debate held seven years later, which is the subject of this book, may prove to be more significant, because the issues are self-consciously becoming more clear today and because of the broader audience and appeal of the most recent debate.
Of the many pastors and teachers who are publishing materials written from a "Reconstructionist" perspective today, our finest author is, in my opinion, Gary DeMar. His books and articles are clearly written, soundly researched, and politely expressed. For these reasons Mr. DeMar's publications have proven to be the most helpful summaries of Reconstructionist thought we can offer to those willing to learn about the position. He pursues cogent theological polemics, rather than creative innovations and
imaginative interpretations; accordingly, he has earned a reputation for reliability. He expresses himself in a well-tempered fashion, which has brought him a reputation as a Christian gentleman.
Therefore, those wishing to study "Christian Reconstruction" seriously and carefully are advised to read this and other works by Gary DeMar. This particular book, The Debate over Christian Reconstruction, arises from a specific interchange with certain critics of Reconstruction (Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice) at a public debate April 14, 1988. Previous to this occasion, Mr. DeMar (along with Peter Leithart) had already replied to, and interacted extensively with, critic Dave Hunt in the book, The Reduction of Christianity. That book is perhaps the best presentation of the transformational world-and-life-view known as "Christian Reconstruction" which has been published to date, and it would do the careful reader well to study it along with (maybe, before) the present work.
It is evident that Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice did not do so adequately prior to their public debate with Gary DeMar and Gary North. This lapse severely crippled any effort on their part to set forth a serious and accurate critique of Christian Reconstruction -- which is disappointing, of course, for anyone who wished to see the theological issues competently engaged in the debate. Hunt and Ice did not address the integrated theological perspective (the total worldview) of Christian Reconstruction, but targeted only one element: its victorious millennial eschatology. This one faux pas alone precluded their winning the debate because the question being debated was whether Christian Reconstruction is a "deviant theology," and millennial eschatology has never in the history of the evangelical Christian church been made a credal point of orthodoxy which defined heresy or apostasy. All Christians who profess "the holy catholic [universal] church" (the Apostle's Creed} recognize that others who hold millennial views different from their own are nevertheless their Christian brothers and sisters in the Lord. They may be mistaken, but to accuse them of "deviant" theology is an altogether different -- and very serious -- charge. Hunt and Ice were incapable (perhaps unqualified) to substantiate such a grave charge. Heresy-hunters bear a heavy responsibility for theological proficiency, and (like all Christian teachers) will come under greater judgment for their inaccuracies (James 3:1).
Even more, as the present book demonstrates, Hunt and Ice left themselves open to ready refutation on the particular points of eschatology they addressed, from the exegesis of Matthew 24 to the biblical concepts of victory and dominion. Their historical claims were equally flimsy. The reader can explore this general observation for himself. I wish to point out but one particular and conspicuous defect in the argumentation of the Reconstructionist critics and comment upon it: their penchant for misrepresentation of what they were called upon to criticize. It is especially because of this (and not simply the academic shortcomings) that we must judge, ethically, that critics Hunt and Ice lost the debate. Repeatedly we encounter allegations and critical assumptions about Reconstructionist eschatology which are misleading, false portrayals of it -- for instance, the suggestion that a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is essential to it, or that it is an innovation from theological liberalism which claims no Biblical support, or that it has affinity with the positive confession movement or Manifest Sons of God, or that it promotes dominion "over people" (tyranny?), or that it does not allow Christ to rule over His earthly kingdom, etc. None of this is even remotely accurate. And that fact is highly significant if we are sensitive to Biblical ethics.
Of course, this is not the first time by any means that Reconstructionist thought has suffered abuse from those who have not responsibly studied the issues or bothered to be fair in how they depict its distinctives. The faulty scholarship has been witnessed over and over again, from minor points to thundering accusations. Ten years ago at a faculty forum on theonomic ethics at Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, Mississippi), one professor publicly criticized the author of Theonomy in Christian
Ethics for the scholarly shortcoming of failing to deal with Delling's treatment (in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) of "fulfill" from Matthew 5:17, only to be informed to his embarrassment that Delling's treatment was rehearsed and rebutted on page 64 of the book he was criticizing! This may seem a minor point, and relative to others it is.
In that same year, Evangel Presbytery (of the Presbyterian Church in America) publicly declared that ministerial candidates holding a theonomic view were unacceptable to the church. More remarkable than this harsh judgment, however, was the fact that it was after the decision to promulgate it that the presbytery determined to appoint a committee to study the matter! A year later the study committee recommended a reversal of the previous judgment, acknowledging that it "was taken without proper study and deliberation." The committee's report said: "We admit that many of our minds were made up before we began this study. . . . The vast majority of us . . . had never seen, much less read a copy of the book [Theonomy in Christian Ethics]."
In 1978 Aiken Taylor, as editor of the Presbyterian Journal, wrote in criticsm of the theonomic (or Reconstructionist) position that it was contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, (2) even as others were hastily declaring that it was not part of mainstream Reformed theological thinking. Such claims were readily refuted by historical research, however. (3) Indeed, a severe critic of theonomic ethics, Meredith Kline, subsequently conceded that the theological outlook was indeed the position of the Westminster Standards. (4) This concession did not deter Kline, however, from railing against the theonomic view as "a delusive and grotesque perversion of the teaching of Scripture." Yet in every place where this thundering condemnation is found, Kline adduced not one exegetical argument against the position, but there were no less than fifty places in the book he was criticizing which stood contrary to his representations of the theonomic position! (5) In a circulated but unpublished paper written against theonomic ethics in 1980, Paul Fowler falsely alleged that the position allows nothing unique about Israel's civil order, and then arrogantly insisted that his characterization could not be mistaken -- even though it directly flew in the face of numerous things taught in the book he was criticizing. (6) Critics like Robert Strong, (7) Gary Long, (8) Walter Chantry (9) and others have used epithets like "Judaizing" or "legalism" of the position, when over and over again Reconstructionists have shown as clearly as anyone could expect that they are committed to salvation by God's grace alone. In a feature article in Christianity Today, Rodney Clapp made the outlandish mistake of pitting Reconstructionist political theory against democratic procedures, a portrayal which runs counter to everything in the Presbyterian and Puritan historical background for the position! (10) Examples could go on and on. (11)
Continue to part 2 of 2 of this Forward.
The Debate over Christian Reconstruction
by Gary DeMar (Atlanta: American Vision, 1988)
from the forward by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen
Over the last decade I have witnessed more slurs and misrepresentations of Reconstructionist thought than I have the heart or ability to count, and I am thinking here only of the remarks made by Christians in positions of leadership: elders, pastors, instructors, writers -- those who bear the "greater accountability" since they lead Christ's sheep as teachers. This has forced me as an educated believer to stand back and look more generally at the what is transpiring in the Christian community as a whole with respect to its scholarly integrity. And I am heartbroken. It is difficult enough for us to gain a hearing in the unbelieving world because of its hostility to the Lord Jesus Christ and its preconception of the lowly intelligence of His followers. The difficulty is magnified many times over when believers offer public, obvious evidence of their inability to treat other's opinions with careful accuracy. Our "scholarship" is justly ridiculed by those who have been educated in institutions with no commitment to Christ or His Word, but who have the ethical integrity to demand as a prerequisite to acceptable scholarship that a student represent his opponent fairly before proceeding to criticize or refute him. To use a Pauline expression, "even the Gentiles" know better than to permit imprecision and erroneous portrayals in a serious intellectual discussion. Yet Christians (I include all of us) often seem to care little for that minimal standard of scholarly respectability. How, then, can we be taken seriously? How can we take ourselves seriously?
That holy and inspired Word of God, to which all of us swear allegiance as followers of Christ (whether Presbyterians or Baptists or charismatics or dispensationalists or Reconstructionists or whatever), is profitable to us "for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). From it we should learn not to speak carelessly: "See a man who is hasty with his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him" (Proverbs 29:20). We should learn to speak cautiously about others (e.g., Matthew 5:22; Psalm 116:11; James 3:5-18), not wrestling people's words or reviling them (Psalm 50:20; 56:5; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:10). We should interpret them in the best light afforded by the facts (cf. Acts 24:8), rather than with evil suspicion (1 Timothy 6:4). "He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile" (1 Peter 3:10).
God's Word directs us to study a matter before we presume to speak critically regarding it: "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is a folly and shame to him" (Proverbs 18:13). Scripture teaches us to avoid slander, if we would dwell with Jehovah (Psalm 15:3). We must then be scrupulous to speak the truth about others, even those we would criticize. "A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow" (Proverbs 25:18). When we witness against our neighbors "without a cause," we become guilty of "deceiving" with our lips (Proverbs 24:28). The exhortation of Paul is inescapably clear: "Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth each one with his neighbor, for we are members of one another" (Ephesians 4:25). All of this is an extended commentary of the fundamental command of God's law: "You shall not bear false witness against
your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16) -- reiterated by Christ (Matthew 19:18), who indicts us further by showing that false witness comes from the heart and defiles us (Matthew 15:19-20).
When we engage in theological debate with each other as fellow believers, then, it is ethically imperative that we honor our common Lord (who is the Truth, John 14:6) by being cautious to speak the truth about each other's positions. We are "members" together of the body of Christ.
Theological correction, of course, must be given where necessary; there is no disputing that. However, before presuming to correct one another, we must give the intellectual and personal effort necessary to portraying each other's views correctly. Only then are we ethically qualified to offer a critique. Only then will our critiques bring theological health and unity to the Christian community. If we refuse to speak accurately of each other, we have settled for uncharitable prejudices and party-spirit, and a
watching world has little reason to take seriously our claims to being born again with hearts enabled to love each other as God intends.
Over the last decade we have seen some extremely strong words of condemnation uttered about Reconstructionist theology. Those condemnatory words, however, have repeatedly proven to be tied to gross misrepresentations of the Reconstructionist perspective. When those counterfeit portrayals are laid aside, the cautious student will find that not one substantial line of refutation or criticism has been established against the fundamental distinctives of Reconstructionism -- a transformational worldview embracing theonomic ethics, postmillennial eschatology, and presuppositional apologetics. These theological underpinnings can be shown to be sound and reliable.
That should not be taken to mean that Reconstructionist writers (i.e., those who subscribe to the theological distinctives listed here) can be defended regarding every particular aspect of their own personal theological method or regarding every doctrinal conclusion they have ever drawn. There is continuing need for correction and reform at particular points, and Reconstructionism is not above hearing constructive criticism. This has become evident in recent assessments of particular Reconstructionist writiers for their hermeneutical excesses and for their harsh or uncharitable way of speaking. (I have particular examples in mind, but they need not be mentioned here.) It is a mark of spiritual health and wisdom that such examinations of our flaws are issued and heeded. Such criticisms do not, however, belie the underlying strength of the Reconstructionist perspective.
The claim made by Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice that the Reconstructionist position is "a deviant theology" simply inaugurated one more rotation of the polemic cycle which we have witnessed over the last ten years: High rhetoric and harsh criticism met and thoroughly undermined by sober research and theological analysis which shows how critics of Reconstructionist theology have not produced a clear Scriptural refutation, have been led into positions which stand contrary to well-established Biblical teaching, or end up in ambiguity or self-contradiction regarding their own worldview and ethic.
We are grateful to Gary DeMar for one more turn of this wheel. May his fine Debate over Christian Reconstruction lead further students of the Scripture to consider the challenge, the cogency, and the benefit of the Reconstructionist worldview.
You have now read part 2 of 2 of this Forward. Continue to part 1 of 2 of this Forward.
Contra Mundum
No. 3 Spring 1992
Christian Reconstruction: A Call for Reformation and Revival By Robert Parsons
Christian Reconstruction is a call to the Church to awaken to its biblical responsibility to revival and the reformation of society. While holding to the priority of individual salvation, Christian Reconstruction also holds that cultural renewal is to be the necessary and expected outworking of the gospel as it progressively finds success in the lives and hearts of men. Christian Reconstruction therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a biblical blueprint.
Christian Reconstruction is also an attempt to answer the unprecedented threat facing the Church of Jesus Christ in the 20th century resurgence of secular humanism and parallel rise of statism. The state threatens to swallow the Church by such actions such as property taxation, zoning laws, and direct court action, all directly contrary to the Word of God. In one case, a church was taken to court for dismissing a practicing homosexual from its staff. In another, the church was padlocked by police for operating a Christian school without a licensed teacher. This is only the tip of the iceberg; there were several thousand civil cases pending against churches in 1985.
There are two fatal errors facing the Church as it is being called upon to respond to this threat.
Fatal Error #1: Retreat
Retreat is failing to apply the Word of God to society and culture. It seems as though many Christians are guided more by Plato in some aspects of their thinking than by Christ. They tend to deny the application of scripture to the secular. They fail to recognize that every sphere is spiritual and subject to the Word of God.
This shows up in a studied indifference to biblical teaching on civil law, economics, government and other cultural applications. It is pietism as opposed to true piety. There was, for example, little response to the abortion holocaust from the evangelical Church for over 10 years after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling.
Fatal Error #2: Accommodation
Accommodation is misapplying the Word of God in society and culture. This is by far the more subtle error. One glaring example would be "Christian socialism" like that espoused by Ron Sider in Rich Christians In An Age of Hunger. This perspective down plays biblical charity and poor laws (such as gleaning) in favor of the anti-biblical "solution" of government taxation and redistribution of wealth.
By way of contrast, the truly biblical welfare is local, personal, voluntary and usually requires the poor to work (2 Thes. 3:10).
The Christian Reconstruction movement has been raised up by God to awaken the Church to the reality of these two fatal errors.
Christian Reconstruction is a call to return to the vision of the Reformation, where men sought to restructure every sphere of life according to the Word of God. This is true biblical revival. Every example of revival in Scripture extended beyond individual repentance to impact every facet of culture. For example, rediscovery of the Law by King Josiah (2 Kings 22,23) produced a reformation (but not a revival) leading to reconstruction of the entire Hebrew culture. In the New Testament, proclamation of the crown rights of King Jesus resulted in changes to all life, it being said that the world had been turned upside down (Acts 17).
The Foundation:
Sovereignty of God
Christian reconstruction rests on one solid foundation stone: the sovereignty of God. Sovereignty refers to God's supreme power and rule. His reign and control extends into every sphere of life, here and now, not just in eternity. To defer His Kingship is to deny His Kingship. The Bible contains the directives of the King of kings for every area of human activity, including civil government, economics, art, science, family, church, and more. Activity in each sphere is to be governed by the Law of God, with minimal interference from civil government. There are no neutral zones.
God exercises His sovereignty through many secondary agencies. For example, civil government is responsible to God to bear the sword, executing God's wrath against violators of His Law. The Church, as the depository of the Law of God, is to provide Biblical instruction for every sphere, including civil government. She is not to control civil government, but rather to provide expert legal counsel (Deut.17:8-13). Many of her sons are expected to assume the mantle of civil leadership.
Resting on the foundation of God's sovereignty, four vital pillars support the Christian Reconstruction movement:
Pillar #1: Redemption
This is the sovereignty of God in salvation. All men are disobedient and worthy of eternal separation from God in Hell. But Jesus Christ, the perfect man, died as a substitute for sinners. Because Christ shed His blood in their stead, God justly pardons everyone who believes the Gospel, granting them eternal life. This is called justification (Rom. 6:23).
Justification is accomplished entirely by the grace and mercy of God. Sinful man, being totally depraved, is utterly dependent on the provision of God for salvation, including the ears to hear and even the faith to believe the Gospel. Salvation does not rest primarily on the "decision" of a particular man for God, but rather on God's decision to save that particular man. Jesus said: "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you ..." (John 15:16).
Pillar #2: Law of God
Christian Reconstruction upholds the authority of the Law of God in every sphere of society. This is the sovereignty of God in ethics. 1 Tim. 1:8 implies a lawful and an unlawful use of the Law of God. It is unlawful to seek acceptance with God by trying to obey the Law of God, the ceremonial law, or any manmade additions to the Law. We are justified by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8). On the other hand, man must look to the Law of God as his guide for holy living and civil statutes. The perfect standard of the Law shows us how we are to live, how far short we fall and how much we need a Savior.
"We know that the law is good if anyone uses it lawfully" (1 Tim. 1:8).
Unlawful Uses of the Law:
1. Salvation by Works
2. Sacrificial Observances (Gal. 3:24)
3. Manmade Traditions Added to the Law (Mk. 7:7ff.)
Lawful Uses of the Law:
1. Guide for Life
2. Convict of Sin (Rom. 3:20)
3. Civil Use (1 Timothy 1:8,9)
Therefore, "not under the law" means that we are no longer condemned by the Law of God since we are justified by faith. It does NOT mean we are no longer ethically and morally bound to obey Old Testament law. Legalism results from a misapplication of God's moral Law or from traditions added to the Law. Simple childlike obedience to the Law of God does NOT equal legalism.
The faulty interpretive principle of Old Testament law is to assume the the Old Testament in invalid unless confirmed by the New Testament.
The faithful interpretive principle is to assume that the Old Testament is valid and still in effect unless specifically changed by the New Testament.
Covenantal shifts have occurred in areas such as sacrificial laws, ceremonial laws, Sabbath laws, dietary laws and agricultural laws. 1 Timothy 1:9 goes on to list a category of civil crimes that the Law of God is to restrain under the New Covenant: murder, kidnapping, adultery, perjury, etc. Therefore, one useful use of the Law of God is to restrain evil doers in society.
The theological name for this approach is "theonomy," from the Greek words "theos" meaning God and "nomos" meaning law. When men reject the Law of God as a standard, they are left with autonomy (self-law). This takes many forms, including common sense, pluralism, natural law, democracy (law of the people), and statutory law. The result of rejecting God's absolutes is always chaos.
When the Church rejects God's Law, it usually adopts what it calls the "law of love" in its place as the guide to action. Often this is a love devoid of content, that exalts unity over truth to avoid confrontation. But true biblical love goes hand in hand with the Law. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15,21). By rejecting the standard of God's Law, the Church has nothing of substance to offer the world and becomes irrelevant.
Pillar #3: Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is the self-sufficiency of an authoritative Bible. This is the sovereignty of God in revelation. Pesuppositionalism defines our approach to the sovereign Word of God. Too often Christians try to "prove" the Bible to the natural man by presenting evidences from creation or logic. They assume the problem is merely intellectual and that belief will flow naturally from an airtight presentation of the facts.
But the Bible says that natural man willfully suppresses the truth (Rom. 2:15). The problem is not, therefore, a lack of evidence, but the basic tendency to set oneself up as the ultimate judge of truth. The heart of Eve's sin lay in exalting herself as the judge of what God had said. (Gen. 3:5,6).
These presuppositions radically alter our approach to the non-believer. If our defense of the faith consists solely of presenting evidences to his supposed independent reason, we are simply encouraging his independence, Instead of a focus on persuasion with facts and logic, Christian Reconstruction challenges the natural man, who presumes himself to be the ultimate judge of truth. The sword of the Spirit does not need to be proved, it needs to be used. We presuppose that the sword of the Spirit will penetrate the hearts of natural men knowing that the Law of God in their hearts confirms its truth.
Pillar #4: Assurance of Earthly Victory
This is the sovereignty of God in history. The Bible insists that God's Law is to hold full sway in every sphere of earthly activity, in history as well as eternity (Mat. 6:10). God's sovereignty ensures it will hold sway. He has commanded His Church to carry His gospel ("teaching them to observe all things" - Matt. 28:20 includes God's Law) to the nations. He has given us power for this task. The only hindrance is a faithless Church that can only see giants in the promised land of earthly victory.
Some Christians say God has turned world rulership over to Satan until the second coming of Christ. But this denies God's explicit claim to ownership (Ps. 24:1) and the decisive work of Christ in destroying the power of the devil (Col. 2:15, 1 Jn. 3:8).
This view overlooks the various meanings of the word "world" (Compare John 3:16 with 1 John 2:15). Satan may be the god of the world system that opposes God, but to grant him a sovereignty that belongs to God alone borders on blasphemy.
In The American Covenant, Marshall Foster observes that the implications of which view you hold are profound:
If you see God as ruling the earth:
1. Your commission is to subdue the earth and build Christian nations through evangelizing and discipleship.
2. You see Christian culture to be the only acceptable culture and you see all others as aberrations.
3. All of God's world is holy and every activity in life is a religious activity to be seen as a spiritual work for God.
4. Reformation is expected.
If you see Satan as ruling the earth:
1. You must just concentrate on saving souls from this evil world.
2. You see Christian culture as a counter-culture, a persecuted minority in an evil world.
3. Church activity is primary and spiritual, while worldly pursuits are secular and to be dealt with only as a necessity.
4. Reformation is impossible and suspect, since things must get worse before Christ returns.
The above dichotomy illustrates the importance of ideas in determining consequences, because to the degree Christians have abdicated their leadership role and denied the "crown rights of Jesus Christ," to that degree the humanists have filled the void.
In summation, Christian Reconstruction is the only view that biblically answers the question of how Christians should relate to their culture.
Not RETREAT, that fails to apply the Bible to the problems of society (Fatal Error #1).
Not ACCOMMODATION, that misapplies the Bible to endorse various forms of humanism (Fatal Error #2).
But RECONSTRUCTION according to the Law of God.
Individual salvation is the necessary priority, but Christian Reconstruction teaches that cultural renewal is an expected outworking of the Gospel. When Jesus said "make disciples of all nations," He meant it literally. The very cultural/govern-mental fabric of the nations is to be transformed by the preservative effect of their Christian citizens. This is the vision of the Reformers, the Puritans and the Pilgrims. This is the vision that we must rekindle anew today.
The Mosaic Law and National Reconstruction by Ralph G. Turk, D.Min
.
Faith Pulpit, January/February 1990
There is a movement today identified as Reconstructionism or Dominion Theology that has its roots in postmillennialism. It advocates establishing a theocratic kingdom in America based on the judicial laws of Moses. In fact, by its reasoning, the Christian is under a divine mandate to accomplish this end.
It has been popularized in recent years by Rousas J. Rushdoony in "The Institutes of Biblical Law" and Greg Bahnsen in "Theonomy in Christian Ethics". Out of this has come the Chalcedon school which is a foundation that identifies itself as an independent Christian educational organization. Its viewpoint represents an exact opposite to the Biblical, dispensational position of fundamental Baptists. In essence, Reconstructionists argue the continuing and universal obligation of Old Testament Law.
Moreover, although the ceremonial laws are excluded from the Chalcedonian theory of theonomic politics, laws of man's duty to God are included, the sanctions, as well as the stipulations of Mosaic Law. This means that the civil ruler is supposed to execute capital punishment in all cases prescribed by Moses; these include incorrigibility in children, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, witchcraft, sabbath-breaking, and advocacy of worship of gods other than Jehovah.
Lest we be misunderstood, based on New Testament authority, we stand solidly behind all legitimate standards of holiness and deplore the pell-mell race to utter degradation our society runs. Further, we should be active in upholding those standards in our preaching, teaching, election of public servants, enactment of laws, and personal lifestyle. After all, God, in His moral essence, does not change. But this is not the issue.
This is the issue: is the New Testament Christian under the law of Moses and do we, then, have a mandate to construct a theocratic society in America ?
A fact that is too often missed among even the best of us is that Christians are a distinctively New Testament people. What is the Mosaic Law and does it apply to New Testament people? The Mosaic Law is the theocratic system of regulations which governed the nation of lsrael in every aspect of its life. (Deut. 4:8; 5:1; Mark 12:29, 30; Rom. 9:4). According to Romans 2:14, Gentiles have never been under the Mosaic Law except the very small number who became Jewish proselytes. Further, the church, itself, was never given the Mosaic Law. Since the church was founded on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, there is absolutely no Scriptural evidence that the Mosaic Law was given to the church.
The Word of God has divided humanity into three groups--the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church (I Cor. 10:32). Some Scripture has been specifically written to each of these three. It is a violation of God's Word to misapply Scripture written specifically to and for the Jews. The purpose of the Mosaic Law was to reveal man's utter hopelessness and sinfulness until Christ should come (Gal. 3:16-19).
At the root of this controversy is the issue of the unity of the Law. There are those who argue from the popularized "division" of the Mosaic Law (moral, ceremonial, and civil) that the ceremonial part of the Law was finished in Christ, but that all aspects of the moral and civil laws are in force today both for individuals and for society.
But the position of Biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christian, is that the Mosaic Law constitutes a unified system and that all of its various regulations are equally binding. The only exception to this position is held by those who adhere to some form of covenant theology. But it is interesting to note that even many who espouse a covenant position consider the rationale of dominion theologians unbiblical or at least exegetically erratic. Thus, the issue of the unity of the Mosaic Law leaves only two alternatives --either complete deliverance from, or complete subjection to the entire Mosaic system.
Finally, has the entire Mosaic Law been terminated and, if so, when? II Corinthians 3:7-14 is clear. Three times (vs. 7, 11, and 14) the Law is declared cancelled. According to Colossians 2:14, Christ's death "blotted out" the Mosaic system. For instance, as a consequence there is no penalty for failure to observe the Sabbath. And if there is no penalty, there obviously is no longer a Law that applies.
The book of Hebrews especially nails the coffin of societal reconstructionism shut with these assertions:
1. There has been a change from the Mosaic Law (Heb. 7:12).
2. The first covenant --- the Mosaic Law --- has been replaced by the New Covenant (Heb. 8:7-9).
3. The Mosaic Law was merely a shadow of things to come, nor the real thing (Heb. 10:1). Therefore, the Law was intentionally temporary.
4. The Mosaic Law (first) has been taken away in order that the New Covenant (second) may come into existence (Heb. 10:9).
5. Christ is the end (termination) of the Mosaic Law (Rom. 10:4).
In light of our viewpoint, often we are: accused of "Antinomianism" or "Lawlessness." But that is simply not true. Instead of the Mosaic Law, we are under the Law of Christ. This is not the Mosaic Law (I Cor. 9:20, 21; Gal. 6:2). It is the Law of Love (Jn. 13:34) and is a "new commandment." These are not issues of stone: these are issues of heart.
And there is our answer. We do not change our society by changing its government and its laws. Both Calvin and the Puritans attempted the impossible (the impossible being a change of society through government) and felt the pangs of its failure. Out mandate is to take the gospel of salvation, which alone is capable of changing the heart of man, and doing what we are mandated to do: "Preach the gospel to every creature."
We have no expectation of significantly changing our society or that of others as desperately as each society needs it. We look for the coming of Jesus Christ in "power and great glory" to set up His kingdom and rule of righteousness of which "there will be no end." The tragedy in our churches is an almost total failure to evangelize the lost and to accept this mandate that we have been given.
What Inspired the Greatest Century of Missionary Advance? By Rev. Peter Hammond
This article is the first of an eight-part series on the 19th Century Missionary Movement, what inspired it, the people who transformed nations and their legacy.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is life-changing, history-making, and nation-transforming! If it doesn't change your life and the lives of those around you, it's not the Biblical gospel. The nineteenth century was the greatest century for missions to this point. In 1795, William Carey launched the modern missionary movement. In just one hundred years, Bible translations multiplied from 50 to 250 and mission organizations multiplied from 7 to 100. Protestant missionaries were sent out to every corner of the world. Whole tribes were converted and nations discipled. Within a century, by 1900, the number of professing Christians had more than doubled from 215 million to 500 million. What inspired this great century of missionary advance?
Carey's Challenge
On May 31, 1792, in Northhampton, England, William Carey preached one of the most influential sermons in history. Along with his 87-page book, An Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, Carey's sermon literally launched the modern missionary movement.
The text was Isaiah 54:2-3 and his challenge, "Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God," inspired twelve Reformed Baptists to form the "Particular (Calvinist) Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathens." Despite being uneducated, under-funded, and underestimated, William Carey's bold project to plant the gospel among the Hindus in India inspired the greatest century of missionary advance in history. Yet that would not have been initially apparent. Carey's mission provoked controversy, dissention, and criticism. By an act of the British Parliament it was illegal for any missionary to work in India without a license from the British East Indies Company. The East Indies Company had made it clear that they would not issue any such licenses, because they believed that any missionary work would jeopardize their business activities among the Hindus. So the first mission of the modern era of missions was illegal. Once Carey's family and team had evaded and overcome the obstacles before them, they endured some crushing trials. Carey's young son, Peter, died of dysentery; his wife went insane; and his co-worker squandered all their money and bankrupted the mission. Sickness afflicted them all. Furthermore, after seven years of tireless toil in India, Carey still did not have a single convert!
Nevertheless, Carey provides us with an inspiring testimony of steadfast perseverance. Utterly convinced of the sovereignty of God and standing on the promises and prophecies of Scripture, Carey kept on working. The Bengali New Testament was first published in 1801within a year of the baptism of their first convert. By 1818, there were 600 baptized and discipled church members. Despite a devastating fire in 1812 which destroyed their print house, paper stock, and manuscripts, Carey and his team started all over and succeeded in translating the entire Bible into six languages, the New Testament into twenty-four languages, and the gospels into thirty-four languages! Carey also successfully campaigned for legal reforms, outlawing infanticide, child prostitution, and sati (widow burning). Serampore College, which Carey established, has had a profound influence for nearly two centuries.
Sacrifice and Service
Studying the strategies and sacrifices of William Carey and the other prominent missionaries of the nineteenth century makes it clear why the 1800s were the greatest century of missions. First of all, the missionaries of the last century were incredibly tough. They routinely made sacrifices and endured hardships that we can hardly imagine.
The first American missionaries to go overseas, Adoniram and Ann Judson, endured debilitating tropical diseases and vicious opposition and imprisonment under the cruel king of Burma. They also lost children to disease and labored for seven years before seeing their first convert from Buddhism. Ann Judson died in the field, only 36 years old. Yet by the time Adoniram Judson died, there were over 100,000 baptized church members among the Karen tribe! To this day the mostly Christian Karen people remain steadfast in Burmaan island of Christianity in a sea of Buddhismfighting one of the longest wars of this century. It is a war for survival against the despotic Buddhist dictatorship that is seeking to annihilate the Christian Karen people.
On average, missionaries to Africa served only eight years before dying there. Most of the missionaries in the last century, particularly the wives, died young. Hudson Taylor's wife, Maria, died in childbirth. Johan Krapf, missionary to East Africa, lost his wife and both children to disease within months of arriving in Africa. I have seen graveyards of missionaries outside the churches that they established. The church in Africa has literally been built upon the bones of countless missionaries and martyrs. By God's grace, medical advances have now immeasurably lengthened the life spans of missionaries to tropical countries. Quinine, antibiotics, and a cupboard full of other life-saving medicines can now defeat diseases that used to kill. But the incredible fact of nineteenth-century history is that, even when it meant going to almost certain early death, there was no shortage of missionary volunteers! As the famous English cricketer turned pioneer missionary, C. T. Studd, declared: "If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him."
Body, Mind, and Spirit
The second most striking aspect of nineteenth-century missions is how comprehensively they sought to fulfill the Great Commission by ministering to body, mind, and spirit. Their aim was nothing less than the total transformation of all areas of life in obedience to the Lordship of Christ. Whereas today many missionaries might be satisfied with an evangelistic crusade or the establishment of a self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating congregation with their own church building, missionaries of the last century typically aimed for far greater depth of penetration. William Carey left India with a permanent legacy of Scriptures translated, schools and colleges established, laws protecting widows and orphans entrenched, and congregations thoroughly discipled in Biblical doctrine. Dr. Kenneth Fraser, the Scottish missionary to Moruland, also laid firm foundations for the church in South Sudan by establishing the first hospital, school, and church in the area. Most of the Moru people were won to Christ and have remained steadfast Christians even under vicious persecution by the Muslim government of Sudan.
This strategy of ministering to body, mind, and soul was enormously successful. Dr. David Livingstone combined his medical training with his theological education and a vision for establishing lay leadership Bible training centers throughout Africa to minister to body, mind, and soul. His painstakingly detailed and accurate geographic research, mapmaking on his pioneer explorations, and his published research were foundational in opening Africa to Christianity and destroying the Islamic slave trade. Livingstone had the grace to see that his mission was part of a divine plan to set many souls free from slavery, both physical and spiritual.
Despite the crushing losses of his fourth child, Elizabeth, and his wife, Mary, to diseases in the field, and many debilitating illnesses, attacks by wild animals and Muslim slave raiders, criticism from home, and the physical strain of hacking his way through dense tropical jungles and walking from coast to coast across Africa, Livingstone persevered: "These privations, I beg you to observe, are not sacrifices. I think that word ought never to be mentioned in reference to anything we can do for Him Who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes become poor."
A Vision of Victory
The tribulations so willingly endured by so many missionary pioneers should provoke us to ask: what could have inspired them to continue on in the face of such overwhelming obstacles and hardships? Battling rains, chronic discomfort, rust, mildew and rot, totally drenched and fatigued, laid low by fever, Livingstone continued to persevere across the continent. Hostile tribes demanded exorbitant payment for crossing their territory. Livingstone stared some tense moments down, gun in hand. Trials tested the tenacity of the travel-wearied team. "Can the love of Christ not carry the missionary where the slave trade carries the trader? I shall open up a path in to the interior or perish," Livingstone declared with single-minded determination. "May He bless us and make us blessings even unto death. . . . Shame upon us missionaries if we are to be outdone by slave traders! . . . If Christian missionaries and Christian merchants could remain throughout the year in the interior of the continent, in ten years, slave dealers will be driven out of the market."
David Livingstone was inspired by an optimistic eschatology. Like most of the missionaries of the nineteenth century, Livingstone was a postmillennialist who held to the eschatology of victory:
Discoveries and inventions are cumulative ... filling the earth with the glory of the Lord, all nations will sing His glory and bow before Him ... our work and its fruit are cumulative. We work towards a new state of things. Future missionaries will be rewarded by conversions for every sermon. We are their pioneers and helpers . Let them not forget the watchmen of the night, who worked when all was gloom and no evidence of success in the way of conversions cheers our path. They will doubtless have more light than we, but we serve our Master earnestly and proclaim the same gospel as they will do.
A quiet audience today. The seed is being sown, the least of all seeds now, but it will grow into a mighty tree. It is as if it were a small stone cut out of a mountain, but it will fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:34-45). We work for a glorious future which we are not destined to see, the golden age which has not yet been, but will yet be. We are only morning stars shining in the dark, but the glorious morn will break; the good time coming yet.
The dominion has been given by the power of commerce and population unto the people of the saints of the Most High. This is an everlasting kingdom, a little stone cut out of the mountain without hands which will cover the whole earth, for this time we work.
The challenge of Livingstone rings out to us today: "Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply paid back as a small part of a great debt owing to our God, which we can never repay . . . it is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather, it is a privilege! . . . I beg to direct your attention to Africa: I know that in a few years I shall be cut off from that country, which is now open; do not let it be shut again! I go back to Africa to try to make an open path for commerce and Christianity: will you carry out the work which I have begun? I leave it with you!"
The same Biblical vision of victory inspired William Carey: "Though the superstitions of the heathen were a thousand times stronger than they are, and the example of the Europeans a thousand times worse; though I were deserted by all and persecuted by all, yet my faith, fixed on that sure Word, would rise above all obstructions and overcome every trial. God's cause will triumph!"
Time and again, in the face of crushing defeats, disappointments, diseases, and disasters, Carey reiterated his unwavering eschatology of victory: "The work, to which God has set His hands, will infallibly prosper .... We only want men and money to fill this country with the knowledge of Christ. We are neither working at uncertainty nor afraid for the result. . . . He must reign until Satan has not an inch of territory!"
When at last their first convert, Krishna Pal, was baptized, Carey declared: "The Divine grace which changed one Indian's heart, could obviously change a hundred thousand!" While Carey was quick to trust God for great things, he was remarkably slow to accept a profession of faith from any new convert, even when there was substantial sacrifice involved: "Let nothing short of a radical change of heart in your converts satisfy you" was one of his sayings. Which brings us back to the first paragraph of this article: If it doesn't change your life and those around you, then it's not the Biblical gospel. The missionaries of the nineteenth century went out expecting to change the world, and they did! Most twentieth-century Christians have only expected to save some souls while the world deteriorates. And it has! We need to again rediscover the Biblical vision of victory, the comprehensive ministry to body, mind, and spirit and the sacrificial dedication that made the nineteenth century the greatest century of Christian advance.
"All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For the Kingdom is the Lord's and He rules over the nations." Psalm 22:27-28
Rev. Peter Hammond is a missionary who has pioneered evangelistic outreaches in the war zones of Angola, Mozambique, and Sudan. He is the Founder and Director of Frontline Fellowship and the Director of United Christian Action. He has authored numerous publications, in particular he has written Holocaust in Rwanda, Faith Under Fire in Sudan, In the Killing Fields of Mozambique and Putting Feet to Your Faith. He is the editor of both Frontline Fellowship News and UCANEWS. He can be reached at:
Frontline Fellowship
PO Box 74
Newlands 7725
Cape Town
South Africa
Tel: (011-27-21) 689-4480
Fax: (011-27-21) 685-5884
Can We Legislate Morality? By Rev. R. J. Rushdoony
(Reprinted from Law and Liberty, Ross House Books, 1984)
An oft-quoted statement has it that we can't legislate morality. We are told that it is useless and even wrong to enact certain kinds of legislation because they involve trying to make people moral by law, and this, it is insisted, is an impossibility. Whenever various groups try to effect reforms, they are met with the words, "You can't legislate morality."
Now it must be granted that there is a measure of truth to this statement. If people could be made moral by law, it would be a simple matter for the board of supervisors or for Congress to pass laws making all Americans moral. This would be salvation by law. Men and nations have often resorted to salvation by law, but the only consequence has been greater problems and social chaos.
We can agree, therefore, that people cannot be saved by law, but it is one thing to try to save people by law, another to have moral legislation, that is, laws concerned with morality. The statement, "You can't legislate morality," is a dangerous half-truth and even a lie, because all legislation is concerned with morality. Every law on the statute books of every civil government is either an example of enacted morality or it is procedural thereto. Our laws are all moral laws, representing a system of morality. Laws against manslaughter and murder are moral laws; they echo the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Laws against theft are commandments against stealing. Slander and libel laws, perjury laws, enact the moral requirement, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Traffic laws are moral laws also: their purpose is to protect life and property; again, they reflect the Ten Commandments. Laws concerning police and court procedures have a moral purpose also, to further justice and to protect law and order. Every law on the statute books is concerned with morality or with the procedures for the enforcement of law, and all law is concerned with morality. We may disagree with the morality of a law, but we cannot deny the moral concern of law. Law is concerned with right and wrong; it punishes and restrains evil and protects the good, and this is exactly what morality is about. It is impossible to have law without having morality behind that law, because all law is simply enacted morality.
There are, however, different kinds of morality. Biblical morality is one thing, and Buddhist, Hindu, and Moslem morality radically different moral systems. Some moral laws forbid the eating of meats as sinful, as for example, Hinduism; and others declare that the killing of unbelievers can be a virtue, as in Moslem morality. For Plato's morality, some acts of perversion were noble forms of love, whereas for the Bible the same acts are deserving of capital punishment.
The point is this: all law is enacted morality and presupposes a moral system, a moral law, and all morality presupposes a religion as its foundation. Law rests on morality, and morality on religion. Whenever and wherever you weaken the religious foundations of a country or people, you then weaken the morality also, and you take away the foundations of its law. The result is the progressive collapse of law and order, and the breakdown of society.
This is what we are experiencing today. Law and order are deteriorating, because the religious foundations, the Biblical foundations, are being denied by the courts and by the people. Our American system of laws has rested on a Biblical foundation of law, on Biblical morality, and we are now denying that Biblical foundation for a humanistic one. From colonial days to the present, American law has represented Biblical faith and morality. Because it has been Biblical, our laws have not tried to save men by law, but they have sought to establish and maintain that system of law and order which is most conducive to a godly society.
Now, our increasingly humanistic laws, courts, and legislators are giving us a new morality. They tell us, as they strike down laws resting upon Biblical foundations, that morality cannot be legislated, but what they offer is not only legislated morality but salvation by law, and no Christian can accept this. Wherever we look now, whether with respect to poverty, education, civil rights, human rights, peace, and all things else, we see laws passed designed to save man. Supposedly, these laws are going to give us a society free of prejudice, ignorance, disease, poverty, crime, war, and all other things considered to be evil. These legislative programs add up to one thing: salvation by law.
This brings us to the crucial difference between Biblical law and humanistic law. Laws grounded on the Bible do not attempt to save man or to usher in a brave new world, a great society, world peace, a poverty-free world, or any other such ideal. The purpose of Biblical law, and all laws grounded on a Biblical faith, is to punish and restrain evil, and to protect life and property, to provide justice for all people. It is not the purpose of the state and its law to change or reform men: this is a spiritual matter and a task for religion. Man can be changed only by the grace of God through the ministry of His Word. Man cannot be changed by statist legislation; he cannot be legislated into a new character. The evil will or heart of a man can be restrained by law, in that man can be afraid of the consequences of disobedience. We all slow down a bit on the freeway when we see a patrol car and we are always mindful of speed regulations. The fact of law and the strict enforcement of law are restraints upon man's sinful inclinations. But, while a man can be restrained by strict law and order, he cannot be changed by law; he cannot be saved by law. Man can be saved only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
Now humanistic law has a different purpose. Humanistic law aims at saving man and remaking society. For humanism, salvation is an act of state. It is civil government which regenerates man and society and brings man into a paradise on earth. As a result, for the humanist, social action is everything. Man must work to pass the right set of laws, because his salvation depends upon it. Any who oppose the humanist in his plan of salvation by law, salvation by acts of civil government, is by definition an evil man conspiring against the good of society. The majority of men in office today are intensely moral and religious men, deeply concerned with saving men by law. From the Biblical perspective, from the Christian perspective, their program is immoral and ungodly; but these men are, from their humanistic perspective, not only men of great dedication but men of earnestly humanistic faith and morality.
As a result, our basic problem today is that we have two religions in conflict, humanism and Christianity, each with its own morality and the laws of that morality. When the humanist tells us therefore that "You can't legislate morality," what he actually means is that we must not legislate Biblical morality, because he means to have humanistic morality legislated. The Bible is religiously barred from the schools, because the schools have another established religion, humanism. The courts will not recognize Christianity as the common law foundation of American life and civil government, because the courts have already established humanism as the religious foundation of American life. For humanism is a religion, even though it does not believe in God. It is not necessary for a religion to believe in God to be a religion; as a matter of fact, most of the world's religions are essentially humanistic and anti-theistic.
The new America taking shape around us is a very religious America, but its religion is humanism, not Christianity. It is a very morally minded America, but its ethics is the new morality, which for Christianity is simply the old sin. This new, revolutionary, humanistic America is also very missionary-minded. Humanism believes in salvation by works of law and, as a result, we are trying, as a nation, to save the world by law. By vast appropriations of money and dedicated labor, we are trying to save all nations and races, all men from all problems, in the hopes of creating a paradise on earth. We are trying to bring peace on earth and good will among men by acts of state and works of law, not by Jesus Christ. But St. Paul wrote, in Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Law is good, proper, and essential in its place, but law can save no man, nor can laws remake man and society. The basic function of law is to restrain (Rom. 13:1-4), not to regenerate, and when the function of law is changed from the restraint of evil to the regeneration and reformation of man and society, law itself begins to break down, because an impossible burden is being placed upon it. Today, because too much is expected from law, we get less and less results from law, because law is put to improper uses. Only as we return to a Biblical foundation for law shall we again have a return to justice and order under law. "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it" (Ps. 127:1).
Rev. R. J. Rushdoony is chairman of the board of Chalcedon and a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical Law to society.
Conversion or Coercion? By Rev. Andrew Sandlin
A fundamental truth of the Bible is that the nature of man can be changed only super-naturally. (By "nature," I mean ethical nature, in the sphere of right and wrong, not metaphysical nature, in the sphere of his constitution as a man made in God's image.) The Bible flatly denies that man's nature can be changed by purely natural means (Jn. 1:12-13; 1 Cor. 2:14). Men are converted (turned around ethically) by regeneration. At regeneration, the Holy Spirit implants in man the holy disposition lost in the Fall into which all men are born (2 Cor. 5:17). This is the only way that man's nature can be changed. If man is to change ethically, he must be converted.
When men give up hope in the Bible, they must find other ways to attempt to change man's nature. The most frequent way is through coercion. The most consistent example of this is in modern communistic states. They believe in exposing man to certain external stimuli by which his internal nature can be altered. By pounding into him by means of propaganda the idea that the profit motive is evil for individuals (though not, apparently, for the state), they hope to create a New Man who will work for the good of the commune and the state rather than himself and his family. If men oppose and undermine this statism, they are to be reshaped in hellish gulags by being violently broken physically, emotionally, and psychologically, and then pieced back together to be good statist citizens. This is a reasonable assumption to anyone who has abandoned hope in the miraculous work of regeneration. Mark it down: any state, church, family, or other institutional authority that opts for coercion as a means to alter man's nature has given up hope in the God of the Bible. This applies no less to fundamentalist legalists than to materialistic statists.
The Bible permits coercion in only a few, limited cases. The state may employ the sword (Rom. 13:1-7) to protect life, liberty, and property. (By implication, the state may use coercion to protect its citizens from foreign invasion.) The individual may use coercion to protect life and property (Ex. 22:1-2). Godly parents may employ limited corporal punishment to regulate children's external behavior (Pr. 23:13-14). None of this is designed to alter man's nature. Fines and restitution do not change a thief's nature any more than spanking changes a child's nature. Coercion can protect, at best, external order; it cannot alter man's nature. Only the Spirit of God can alter a man's nature.
It is not for inconsequential reason that the gospel of Jesus Christ is called the "gospel of peace" (Rom. 10:15; Eph. 6:15). It creates peace with God, peace within the individual, and peace between individuals and their fellows. Escalation of coercion and violence in the family, school, media, and the state is a mark of a godless, reprobate culture. When men are converted, only a minimum of coercion is required to hold their sinful impulses in check. The solution to widespread sin and apostasy is not widespread coercion, but rather widespread conversion.
Rev. Andrew Sandlin is Executive Director of Chalcedon and Editor-in-Chief of the Chalcedon Report and The Journal of Christian Reconstruction.
The Gospel: A Call To Arms By Rev. Monte Wilson III
You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honoured, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so it is with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled, and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be. For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death. St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation (9)
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1 says that just prior to the incarnation of Christ, the Greeks used the word gospel in three ways: 1) in reference to the reward given to the messenger of victory: his good news brought relief to the recipients and therefore he was rewarded; 2) in reference to the message itself. It was chiefly a technical term for the message of victory; 3) in a religious sense, it referred to Caesar Augustus as the "Divine savior king" at birth. It also referred to the Caesar's speeches, decrees, and acts, which were "Glad tidings which bring long hoped for fulfillment to the world's longing for happiness and peace."
This religious use of the word gospel was a decree of the Greeks in Asia in 9 B.C. celebrating the birthday of Augustus. It called his birth "the beginning of everything" and honored him as he who "restored the shape of everything that was failing and turning into misfortune and has given a new look to the Universe at a time when it would gladly have welcomed destruction if Caesar had not been born to be the common blessing of all men." Moreover, the decree thanked providence, "which has ordered the whole of our life" by sending a "savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere . . . and whereas the birthday of god [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through him . . . Paulus Fabius Maximus, the proconsul of the province . . . has devised a way of honoring Augustus hitherto unknown to the Greeks, which is, that the reckoning of time for the course of human life should begin with his birth."
Obviously the Greeks' faith was in Augustus. Their gospel was that he would save the world, control its future, and produce peace throughout the Empire.
After the ascension of Christ, the apostles defied the Roman Empire and Augustus by declaring the gospel of Christ. With this one phrase they said that Jesus, not Caesar, was the Divine Savior-King and that He had ascended to the throne where He would usher in a new era of peace.
The educated Roman comprehended this message more clearly than do many modern Christians. He knew that what these first-century Christians were declaring was that Jesus was establishing a rival government. Whenever a Christian refused to bow down to Caesar by not burning incense before the national god, he was clearly saying that even Caesar must bow to Christ.
The Christian gospel is not merely "Jesus Saves." Caesar would have had no problem with this message. No, the gospel that brought persecution to the apostles was that Jesus Christ, the Divine Savior-King, God Incarnate, lived a sinless life, died as a substitute for sinners, rose again, and ascended to heaven where He now rules over time and eternity. In other words: Jesus is the Sovereign Lord, His Word is law, and His kingdom will reign.
The Roman government understood that these men were issuing a challenge to their presumed authority. And the Jews realized that these Christians were telling them that if they wanted to continue being a part of the "Nation of God," they had to bow to the resurrected King they had just crucified. Both groups saw Christianity as an enemy of their governmental systems; each realized that it was a matter of "kill or be killed."
Jesus and the Kingdom
When Christ began His ministry, He preached, "The kingdom of God is near." The gospel of Matthew notes at least fifty times where Jesus referred to the kingdom. The thirteenth chapter of Matthew records the Lord's parables concerning His kingdom. These parables reveal that His reign would come and bear fruit; silently leaven the entire world; cost its subjects everything they owned; and, at the end of time, judge all those outside its domain.
In Matthew 16:28, Jesus told His disciples that some of those standing there listening to Him would not taste of death until they saw "the son of Man coming in his kingdom." When did this happen? Are some of the original twelve hidden somewhere waiting for His kingdom before they can die? Certainly not. They saw the coming of His kingdom on the day of Pentecost, as well as in the judgment of the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.
Luke tells us that Jesus spent the entire time between His resurrection and ascension speaking to His disciples about the kingdom of God (Ac. 1:3). Clearly, He believed their comprehension of this subject was crucial to His purposes. Why else would He spend His last days on earth speaking about this one subject?
After Christ ascended, He poured out the Holy Spirit and began to reign through the church. He rules now. We are not waiting for Him to usher in His kingdom; He has already done it! (Although we certainly will not see the fullness of His kingdom until His physical return.) Furthermore, Paul said that Christ would reign until He put all His enemies under His feet. "Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power" (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Paul explicitly says, then, that we are not waiting for His kingdom to come with the end of time. On the contrary, when the end comes, it will be because Christ's kingdom has defeated all His enemies.
The Nature of His Kingdom
According to Colossians 1:13, Christians have been delivered from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. But some might ask, since the kingdom is obviously with us, why aren't we experiencing "Millennial Peace"? Why aren't all the nations discipled?
While the redemptive work of Christ ushered in God's kingdom definitively, it must be progressively worked out in history until it is finally established on judgment day. Our salvation has the same triad: We were definitively saved, are progressively working out our salvation, and will be perfectly saved on the Day of Judgment. To say that the kingdom is not yet reigning because there is no worldwide peace is as erroneous as saying that because you are not perfect you are not saved.
It is the rejection of Christ's present sovereignty that constricts the ministry of many churches to evangelism and "personal holiness." Their thinking is that because He isn't yet Lord in all men's minds there can be no kingdom until He returns: All that we can hope for is winning a few converts; all that we can work for is to lose as slowly as possible. But lose we will.
It is the nature of the kingdom, however, to increase, not decrease (Is. 9:6-7). It is like a mustard seed that grows from something small into something that gives worldwide shelter. Furthermore, the increase of God's kingdom is continuous and gradual. It is not going to be established by one cosmic revival or by some other cataclysmic event.
The Cultural Mandate and the Great Commission
The Bible gives three stages to Christ's kingdom permeating the world. First, there is the declaration of the gospel of Christ and the regeneration of sinners. Then there is the process of making disciples of these new converts by applying His lordship to every area of life. The final step is for these disciples, both individually and collectively, to begin bringing their culture under the rule of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 10:4-6). In short, we must combine Matthew 28:19, 20 with Genesis 1:28: Make disciples and cultivate the earth for God's glory.
Before we can make disciples, however, we must make converts. It amazes me how so many who loudly profess a deep belief in the ongoing nature of the Cultural Mandate fail to evangelize. We seem to prefer raiding the fruit of other more evangelistic churches and discipling their converts. (Yes, yes, I know they are the Lord's converts, but you do get my point!) The problem here, however, is that we all too often must spend a year or more working to remove a faulty understanding of the gospel. And worse, we fail to obey the Lord's command to go out and share the light to those who are in darkness. I guess it is easier to ridicule the pietists and arminians for the impotency of their watered-down gospel than it is to actually take this full gospel to the world around us.
We cannot "take dominion over the earth" if we refuse to evangelize unbelievers around the world. The kingdom is not going to be extended by good works, political action, or publishing theological treatises on the Cultural Mandate unless there is an equal involvement in evangelism. If we fail to see sinners converted, all we will have at best is a moralistic culture that at heart is still at war with God.
I suggest that churches begin seasonal evangelistic efforts where they rent a large room in a nice hotel and present the gospel through music, drama, the arts, offering Biblical wisdom on how to rear children or manage finances, etc., and that they do this in a way that can be heard by people who have been reared in this age and culture.
Some other ideas: What about watching the newspapers for births or for announcements of first birthdays and sending these families a video with a low-key offer of help, if they do not already have a church? In a church I pastored, we brought in Ballet Magnificat for a Saturday evening performance. Over half of the 400-plus people who came to this performance were unbelievers.
Of course, we should also support those men and women around the world who are taking the gospel of the kingdom of God to those we, as individuals, cannot reach. There are missionaries like Derek and Peter Hammond, as well as nationals like Josue Lopez in Mexico and Mario Aviles in Nicaragua, who are having a massive impact for Christ that we could and should support. I constantly tell the supporters of Global Impact that whatever fruit I produce around the world is their fruit as well because I could not do what I do without their assistance. To put it succinctly, our offerings should support our profession of a world-conquering gospel.
One of the keys to subduing the earth, of course, is not only to declare that Jesus is Lord, but proclaim how He is Lord. Our goal is to apply the Word of God progressively to the world around us. We cannot limit the King's will to character and church life. It is "the earth" that we are to subdue, not just souls. All of life, church, family, education, business, science, the arts, civil government, etc., must be cultivated for His glory. This requires that these spheres submit to the King's Word. As Charles Colson writes in The Body: Being Light in Darkness:
What is clear from creation onward, is that God's rule extends to everything. From our bank accounts to our business dealings to our educational curriculum to our social justice issues to our environmental concerns to our political choices in the voting booth everything must reflect the fact that God's righteous rule extends to all of life. 2
If we reject the King's Word, we implicitly deny that God is sovereign. The laws of God are expressions of His holiness. As such, they reveal to us how to sanctify every sphere of life. To say that God has no will concerning our various vocations, callings, and responsibilities is to say that there are areas of neutrality where man, not God, is sovereign. Neutrality, however, does not exist. Either we are submitting to the Sovereign King and His revealed will, or we are at war with Him.
Part of the institutional church's responsibility is to instruct her members how Jesus' lordship is to be applied to everyday life. For too long, many churches have only prepared their members to attend meetings, tithe, and pray. But, for example, what does God's Word have to say about banking? Is there anything in the Scriptures to equip the banker to cultivate his sphere for the glory of God? Does the Bible have anything to say about loans, debt, and fractional reserve banking? It certainly does. (If you doubt me, read my friend E. Calvin Beisner's book, Prosperity and Poverty.) And if we neglect to instruct the banker in how to bring divine order to the sphere of his vocation, can we then blame him for thinking that Christianity is irrelevant?
It is part of the image of God within human nature to exercise dominion. If Christians deny this doctrine, if we refuse to subdue the earth, then we leave the door open for the godless to rule and to leaven the earth with their sin.
It is not enough merely to say that the Cultural Mandate is still in force today. As the army of God, we must be discipled in how God's Word directs us to subdue the earth. Motivating uneducated and undiscipled believers to subdue the earth will only produce anarchy, everyone doing what seems right in his own eyes.
Subduing the earth involves applying the Word of God to the world around us. Unlike the Israelites, however, we are not to use a steel sword in subduing the earth. The New Testament method of extending God's reign is explained by the analogies of salt, light, and leaven. We are to persuade and convince through the power of the Holy Spirit and through the testimony of our godliness, thus causing others to desire God's will.
If we seek to subdue the earth via the steel sword of power, rather than the spiritual sword of service, we will be rightfully rejected, just as the Gentile authorities were whom Christ condemned. Moreover, if we seek to have godly influence without proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and emphasizing the necessity of regeneration, the unrighteous will throw off the restraints of God's Word at the first opportunity.
1. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 Vols. (Grand Rapids, MI, 1980), Vol. 2, 107-108.
2. Charles Colson, The Body: Being Light in Darkness (Dallas, TX, 1992), 193.
Rev. (Dr.) Monte Wilson III is a noted Reformed speaker and writer. He can be contacted at (770)740-1401, montethird@aol.com or P.O. Box 22, Alpharetta, GA 30239. He is available for preaching, lectures, and conferences.
Testing The Foundations Of Theonomy And Reconstruction J. Esmond Birnie, Queen's University, Belfast
Introduction
If God is sovereign how then should the Christian live, both as an individual and citizen, to apply this fact in the modern world? The Reformation revived belief in the biblical emphasis that God is supreme and sufficient in salvation; should not the way we organise and govern our society also reflect his sovereignty? Certainly, some evangelical Christians have at times stood against whatever was seen as contrary to God's moral law: Wilberforce against slavery, Shaftesbury opposing child labour, and Schaeffer against abortion, for example. In 1897 the notable theologian Abraham Kuyper, later to become prime minister of the Netherlands, pledged himself, `that in spite of all worldly opposition, God's holy ordinances shall be established again in the home, in the school and in the State for the good of the people; to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the Lord, to which Bible and Creation bear witness, until the nation pays homage again to God'.1 So evangelical Christians have not been shy of arguing that all nations are subject to `God's law'. What this might mean in practice has not always been clear, just as varying definitions have been given of the law of God. In recent years, however, the theonomy movement has developed apparently straightforward answers to the questions, `what is God's law?', and `how should that law be applied in contemporary societies?'.
The theonomists (sometimes termed Christian Reconstructionists) argue that we should obey all of the laws presented in the Bible, not simply the Ten Commandments but also including the whole of the Mosaic law in so far as this has not been fulfilled in Christ. We should also expect the state to enforce this observance on all, whether they are believers or not. Theonomists have been gaining in strength in the USA over several decades and there are now signs of interest in the UK. For example, the prominent American theonomist Greg Bahnsen visited England during 1993, and before this the journal Calvinism Today (more recently Christianity and Society) was already disseminating theonomic ideas. The time is therefore ripe to evaluate theonomy.
This task has been greatly eased by the publication of two books which neatly summarise the two sides of the argument. First there is G.L. Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics: Expanded Edition with Replies to Critics (Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg, 1984: hereafter referred to as Bahnsen). Although Rushdoony2 is more the pioneer of theonomy, Bahnsen, until his recent death, provided perhaps the principal `serious' exposition of theonomic thought, together with an attempt to respond to the critics of this school. In contrast, the second book, edited by W.S. Barker and W.R. Godfrey, Theonomy. A Reformed Critique (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1990; hereafter, Barker and Godfrey), represents a disguised compliment to the success of theonomy in gaining influence in the USA especially among the `Reformed' churches. It presents a series of essays in which members of the staff of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia respond to theonomy from the perspectives of hermeneutics, sociology, church history, and social and economic policy.3
Defining Theonomy: The Two Key Propositions
Before proceeding any further it is necessary to define theonomy. Although Bahnsen offers an extensive definition (his ten points, pp. xvi-xvii) this seems reducible to two key propositions: first, the `continuing validity of the law in exhaustive detail', and, second, the obligation on modern governments to follow the government of Old Testament Israel in enforcing such obedience.4
In the first place, Twentieth-century Christians are still obliged to obey the Mosaic law, because of `[the]... continuing validity of the law in exhaustive detail' (Bahnsen p. 39). In support of this contention the theonomists would advance what is probably their favourite text, Matthew 5:17-18, where Jesus said, `I have not come to abolish [the law and the prophets] but to fulfil them... not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished' (NIV; used for all biblical quotations). For the theonomists this provides divine endorsement of the claim that the law of Moses still stands except where set aside by the New Testament.5
Secondly, modern governments are obligated to enforce the law in detail just as that of Old Testament Israel was. In this case, the theonomists have less direct textual evidence but claim that such a case can be reasonably deduced (Bahnsen, pp. 339-64). (They note how the Old and New Testaments claim God as the foundation of all political authorities and also the injunction to believers to work for the good of even heathen political entities; cf. Jer. 29:7). In Deuteronomy 4:6-8 God says, `Observe them carefully [i.e. the laws delivered to Moses], for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people". What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?' In other words, Old Testament Israel, its laws and consequent systems of personal and social righteousness were set up by God to be a model for the other, pagan, nations. The theonomists see no reason why this should cease to be true during the Christian era. One notable consequence of the application of Mosaic law would be that a considerable list of crimes, and indeed certain immoral actions which would not now conventionally be considered as crimes in the legal sense, would become capital offences (Bahnsen, p. 445).
The Strong Points of Theonomy
1. No platitudes or vague generalities
Having defined theonomy we should perhaps begin by noting some of its attractive properties. Those who hope for the development of biblically based social ethics have reasons to give one cheer for theonomy. To begin with, whilst Christian comment on social, political or economic matters has sometimes been at best vague and, at worst, platitudinous (Barker and Godfrey, p. 389),6 the very detailed prescriptions of theonomy avoid being either. Bahnsen (p. 479) argues, `The Law of God and its promotion also offers an answer to the current social-political irrelevance of the orthodox churches of Christ.' Indeed, Bahnsen accuses the non-theonomic mainstream churches in America of losing the ability to say anything meaningful as to how people should live in contemporary society. They `analyse into a mist and mysticism' (Bahnsen, p. 15).7
2. Application of the whole Bible
Not only do theonomists attempt to lay down definite prescriptions for the social order but they try to base this on the whole Bible. This contrasts to those Evangelicals who give the impression that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are somehow less canonical than the rest of the Bible because, after all, they do not seem to have much to say to the modern Christian! The theonomists do find something in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and they display a due reverence for the law of God. Even though the law in itself cannot provide either justification or the empowerment for obedience, it remains, writes Bahnsen, a `transcript of God's holiness and the standard for human righteousness' (Bahnsen, p. 146).
3. Optimism of reconstruction
Some at least would count it an attraction of theonomy that it is an activist and optimistic Christian movement. Its adherents really believe that they can turn the world upside down. Indeed, they aim to `reconstruct' society along lines which conform to the universal lordship of Christ. `If D.L. Moody thought the world was a sinking ship from which souls should be rescued, the Reconstructionists want to commandeer the ship, repair it and sail towards their own destination.'8 Historically, the Reformed churches have had a reasonable track record in stressing the creation mandate (i.e. the idea, based on Genesis 1: 28, that God has commanded human cultural development as part of the fulfilment of his creation purposes),9 but perhaps they could now learn from the enthusiasm with which the theonomists seem to be tackling the reconstruction of society. They appear to be more Calvinist than Calvin himself in expressing a willingness to see not just the church but the whole of society reformed in line with the teaching of the Bible.10
4. Crime and more punishment
From what they see as their firm biblical foundations the theonomists have not been slow to sally forth to attack the influence of other philosophies and ideologies within the church and elsewhere. In some ways this has been beneficial. For example, they rightly stress that the criminal justice system should, amongst other things, provide punishment. This sets them against the humanistic view that punishment is a barbarous relic. This liberal downgrading of punishment may have occurred in part because of self-perceived guilt on behalf of the `haves' that they have no right to punish criminals from amongst the `have-nots', or because violence is sometimes seen as justified if committed for political motives, or because of the generally corrosive impact of relativism, social Darwinism and existentialism on belief in moral absolutes.11 `Thus there is a crescendo of the crime rates of all major cities of the world... and a continuing expression of group anarchy or terrorism.... In the face of all these situations... neither the government of the United States nor the Christian church of the said nation have done what is requisite in the way of supplying an antidote' (Bahnsen, p. 8).
The theonomists also argue (e.g. on the basis of Exodus 22: 1, which states the rate at which thieves of sheep or oxen must make reparation to their victims) that criminals must attempt to make restitution. The theonomists have not been alone in recognising the failure to provide for restitution as a major gap in most modern judicial systems.12
5. Celebration of wealth-creation
Business and economics represents another field in which theonomy provides what is at least in part a useful corrective to certain strong and sometimes damaging influences. The theonomists rightly celebrate wealth-creation as something mandated by God and also as the means through which levels of poverty have been most often reduced. In taking this position they run counter to a very strong tradition in the church which has either downgraded wealth-creation completely or at least accorded it much less favour than the redistribution of wealth.
Such a position may have derived from the Platonism of the early church Fathers, or even residual Manicheism in the case of Augustine, with the consequent tendency to view the affairs of this material world as necessarily evil.13 Any bias against business may have been consolidated during the predominance of the church in medieval Christendom. Since the pre-1600 period was characterised by very slow economic growth and a sort of crude centrally planned economy, there may have been inculcated in church leaderships habits of thought which are now highly inappropriate in an era of dynamic market economies.14 There is a danger that the current teaching programmes of evangelical churches restrict their message on wealth and economics solely to the New Testament strictures against a materialist philosophy of life. This means that many Christians do not realise how much the Bible (especially the Old Testament) praises creativity, and socially responsible and just technological change and economic activity. In fact, even churches which give a very high position to the Bible are prone to absorb the ideas of the outside culture. This means that they sometimes confuse what was once a generally accepted political consensus (e.g. in the UK for the Attlee welfare state of 1945-51, or in the USA for the Great Society of the Kennedy-Johnson 1960s) with a distinctively Christian position.15 A further manifestation of the bias against wealth-creation has been displayed by attitudes to the so-called `Third World'. Perhaps the most vocally expressed view in recent decades has been the argument that the poverty of the less developed countries can be mainly or even entirely attributed to the wealth of the developed world.16
Against all these views, and especially the last, the theonomists have provided a useful corrective. They have noted that poverty has sometimes been a consequence of the behaviour of the poor individual or, indeed, the poor nation, and especially of sinful behaviour. One does not have to accept all of the premises of the theonomists' arguments to agree that they may have generated some valid conclusions with respect to issues such as crime and punishment and riches and poverty. However, have they really worked out from the Bible a watertight system of Christian ethics? There follow some of the reasons why they have not yet done so.
Flaws in Theonomy
1.Deceptive simplicity of theonomic ethics
Perhaps the major reason for the growth of theonomy has been its appearance of attractive simplicity. The answer to the question how should we live, and to the question of how society should be governed, is in both cases the application of all the Old Testament laws. Unfortunately, this simplicity breaks down on closer inspection. Even Bahnsen admits that not every Mosaic law can be directly applied in the context of modern society.
Take, for example, Deuteronomy 22:8, `When you build a new house make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof'. Since American homes typically do not have flat roofs, and the Middle Eastern custom of going up onto the roof is not usually followed, Bahnsen concedes there may be little point in direct enforcement of this injunction. However, he argues that owners of private swimming pools (perhaps more common amongst US theonomists than UK Evangelicals!) must put a barrier around the edge. The point is not that Bahnsen is wrong to argue this but that he has done what non-theonomists who take the Bible seriously have been trying to do for many years, i.e. disentangle which parts of the Bible are culturally specific from those which have a timeless significance.17 Bahnsen further admits that application of the Old Testament to our own circumstances is `not an easy or simple task' (Barker and Godfrey, p. 122). `This very willingness to discuss flexible application of the case law actually detracts from the popular appeal of theonomy, which lies in its (apparently) straightforward biblicism.'18
2. Problems with the interpretative framework
The application of theonomic principles is therefore not as straightforward as it would at first seem. Moreover, difficulties attach to Bahnsen's general approach that all Old Testament laws should be regarded as binding on us unless specifically abrogated in the New Testament. Would the theonomists seriously argue that the prohibitions of Deuteronomy 22:9 (do not mix crops) and 22:11 (do not wear blends of wool and linen) still apply to the Christian (Barker and Godfrey, p. 104)? (It is only fair to add that the symmetrical approach, that only those laws specifically endorsed in the New Testament still stand today, is equally problematic; most evangelical Christians would condemn cross-dressing but the New Testament provides no direct support for the prohibition expressed in Deuteronomy 22:5; Barker and Godfrey, p.110. Leviticus 18:23 presents a similar problem.) Bahnsen does admit that the Old Testament ceremonial laws do not apply to the Christian (Bahnsen, pp. 208-16). In this he is agreeing with the traditional Reformed approach to the identification of those laws which have abiding validity whereby ceremonial laws are seen as being fulfilled by the coming of Christ; obedience to such laws in Old Testament times is in the Reformed view seen as a paradigm, i.e. something from which the Christian can read across lessons but which does not necessarily apply directly. Bahnsen would therefore presumably argue that Deuteronomy 22:9 and 22:11 represent ceremonial provisions, i.e. the separation of God's people from contaminating influences, but the New Testament does not spell this out (though certain provisions, e.g. dietary ones, are clearly abrogated; cf. Mark 7:14-19, Acts 10:9-15).
The legitimacy or otherwise of the theonomic social programme is ultimately a hermeneutical question. Partly this is the issue of assumed continued validity which has just been discussed. Bahnsen, and other theonomists, tend to argue that any non-ceremonial law continues to be valid. The traditional Reformed approach, whereby the law was divided into three categories, ceremonial, civil and moral, with only the third having continued application to Christians, cut no ice with Bahnsen who condemned the critics of theonomy for multiplying distinctions not enumerated in God's Word. However, it is notable that Bahnsen himself employed a twofold classification of the law, into `moral' and `ceremonial'. (The civil category, having been collapsed into the moral, therefore continues to hold.) Since the Bible itself does not contain a formal designation of these laws, though particular ceremonial laws are identified, Bahnsen, just as much as his more traditional Reformed critics, had been engaging in speculation as to the purpose for which God gave particular laws.
Whether the theonomists are right to follow a hermeneutic of assumed continued validity, in which civil laws are subsumed under the continued moral laws, depends critically on the nature and extent of the difference between the old and new covenants. In the old covenant the institutional form of God's kingdom on earth was the nation-state of Israel. Under the new covenant the institutional form is the church which is multi-national and multi-ethnic. Given this shift a good and necessary deduction would be the expiration of the Old Testament judicial laws. `The civil law of Israel (as the application of God's eternal standards to a particular situation in the history of his kingdom) has now (in the progress of his redemptive economy) passed away with the demise of that state (in its unique role as earthly representative of the rule of God) and the advent of a superior institutional expression of God's rule.'19
3. Exact blueprint for criminal justice?
When the interpretative or hermeneutical foundation is weak one should not be surprised that some of the applications are flawed, and so it is with theonomy. Notwithstanding the earlier praise for some aspects of their teaching on criminality and economics, the reservations against their conclusions may be very strong. For example, is it legitimate to deduce that, because Old Testament Israel appears to have had no prisons (or at least Moses made no provision for them in his instructions prior to the conquest of Canaan), there should be no prisons in the modern USA (Barker and Godfrey, p. 44)? The theonomists infer that God's intention is that state authorities should eliminate the criminal class (either through personal reform in the case of minor offenders or through the execution of the more serious; one consequence of the application of the Mosaic law would be, of course, that the range of capital crimes becomes very large). Many people, including many Christians, would be horrified by these suggestions.
Such a reaction does not deter the theonomists, who dismiss such opposition as the exaltation of liberal secularist arguments over and above God's standards (Bahnsen, pp. xxiv-xxvii). The key criticism of theonomic penology is not that it is distasteful but that there may be a misunderstanding of the way justice was applied in Old Testament Israel. There are grounds for holding that the authorities in fact had some discretion in applying the punishment for each crime. This would parallel the interpretation that the ius talionis (`an eye for an eye' etc.) established maximum permissible levels of retribution rather than prescribed obligatory responses (Barker and Godfrey, p.52). Certainly, we have two recorded cases where the state authorities did not immediately deal with what were apparently capital crimes, blasphemy (Lev. 24:10-16) and sabbath-breaking (Num. 15:32-6). Execution occurred only after a specific divine intervention, a `word from the Lord'. The theonomists would presumably respond that the law was eventually applied. What they could not deny is that King David, who as a murderer and adulterer was twice over deserving of capital punishment, was reprieved. In other words, even in Old Testament Israel there appears to have been some discretion in the application of punishment. None of this is to deny that modern state governments still have a God-given responsibility to administer justice (Rom. 13: 1-4) and that Christians can call upon such governments to be `tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime', to use Tony Blair's phrase, perhaps even to the point of the application of capital punishment against murderers. (The instruction that murderers should be executed is provided in Genesis 9:6 and therefore, because it predates the giving of the Mosaic law, could be seen as part of the creation order, which has a timeless and universal significance.) The Christian is not however necessarily obliged to start closing prisons!
4. The wealth of nations
The flaw in theonomic economic thinking is that it fails to appreciate the extent to which the poor, either locally or globally, cannot always help themselves. Chilton20 argues that the Third World is under the judgement of God. It is certainly true that Deuteronomy 28 warns that national poverty can follow national unrighteousness. No doubt sinfulness is a primary cause of Third World problems but Chilton fails to distinguish between the sin of ordinary Africans, Indians and Latin Americans, the sin of their governments, and indeed the sin of western governments and companies. If it is implied that it is exclusively the sin of the Third World poor which is to blame, then theonomy could encourage a rather callous disengagement by rich Christians from concern for the conditions of the poor in the world.21
The rather simplistic monocausal theonomic explanation of global poverty may ultimately be as unhelpful as the similarly monocausal explanation, now apparently favoured in some mainstream evangelical churches and their development charities, which demonises the IMF, the World Bank, and western multinationals, and asserts (but does not prove) that developed world affluence causes underdeveloped world poverty.22 In truth poverty and riches are sometimes the consequences of exploitation and structural sin but sometimes come about by variations in work effort, enterprise and efficiency in the use of resources. The Bible supports the possibility of both situations and therefore it is wrong to claim either explanation as the only permissible one for Christians to adopt. The question which interpretation of poverty is right in any given historical circumstance is therefore partly an empirical one, so that it would be helpful if Christians, both theonomic and non-theonomic, addressed themselves more carefully to the economic evidence before pronouncing on the causes of poverty.23
The theonomists not only argue that the poor of the Third World are largely responsible for their own fate but claim that the same is true for the poor of Chicago and New York, or indeed Glasgow and London. As a result they are reluctant to see either state welfare or private charity applied beyond the `deserving poor'. In this respect one can see some similarity between theonomic social policy and the new right neo-conservatism which came into vogue in the 1980s.24 However, it is worth noting that the theonomists have adopted a position on economic policy which would make even Mrs Thatcher and Mr Reagan, or Michael Portillo and Newt Gingrich or even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, look socialist! For the theonomists the modern state should undertake no actions other than those directly prescribed in the Old Testament and New Testament and this leaves little scope, in their view, for anything beyond the provision of law and order and defence forces.
Once again, the theonomists appear to have no difficulty about being out on a limb. All their opponents, they argue, have fallen prey to humanistic, collectivist fallacies. Presumably they think that these fallacies have even infected American Republicans and British Conservatives, which explains why even right-wing governments have been unable to reduce the state's share in national income. The more fundamental issue than political isolation of the theonomists is whether they are right to use the Bible in the way they do, and more particularly whether modern governments should restrict their activities to only those things which have direct biblical precedents. Application of that principle would have halted Wilberforce's campaign to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire. In fact there may be some biblical support for moving beyond the minimum or laissez faire state; for example, in Joseph's anti-famine measures.25 In addition to empirical criticism of their argument that the poor are always responsible for their fate (the proportion of the USA poor who are able-bodied single males is quite low; Barker and Godfrey, p. 267), a more fundamental failing in the theonomists' position is that it may spring from an inadequate appreciation of the quality of God's grace (Barker and Godfrey, p. 274). His grace is, after all, the presentation of a priceless gift to the entirely undeserving. So perhaps individual Christians, and even the state social security system, should sometimes extend charity even to those who appear to have brought hardship upon themselves. (Acceptance of this principle is not to deny the inevitability of budget constraints at either personal or national level which limit the amount of help which can be given.)
5. Calvin was no theonomist
In spite of, or perhaps because of, the controversy which therefore attaches to aspects of applied theonomy, some theonomists, though not all,26 have been anxious to establish an impressive pedigree for their school. Calvin, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the New England Puritans have all been hailed as proto-theonomists. It is true that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed thinkers appear to have taken a more robust position than their twentieth-century theological descendants on the possibility of using state power to enforce social righteousness (including the use of capital punishment against a wider range of crimes).27 However, this similarity to theonomy is more superficial than substantial, given that the Reformers and Puritans arrived at their position using quite a different approach than the direct and exhaustive application of Old Testament law. For example, Calvin certainly started from God's moral law, which for him was summarised in the Ten Commandments, but then allowed natural law and circumstances to influence any detailed application to, say, Geneva in the 1550s (Barker and Godfrey, p. 302). For example, Calvin judged that the prohibition on interest-bearing loans in Deuteronomy 23 and Leviticus 25 was primarily an anti-poverty measure designed to prevent the entrenchment of absolute poverty and debt slavery in what was a mainly agricultural society. Since he saw this intention of the law, though not its outward form, as having an abiding significance, he did not feel it should prevent interest on loans made to businesses (Barker and Godfrey, p. 307). Of course, Calvin may have made a misjudgement in his re-application of this law to modern industrial society. The Jubilee Centre28 has argued that the development of a financial system based on interest-bearing debt has in many ways been socially harmful, but the important point in this context is that neither Calvin, nor for that matter the Jubilee Centre, is really theonomist.
Similarly, it is very doubtful that the Westminster Confession (1647) is a thorough-going theonomic charter. In fact it states that the various laws associated with the social and political order of Old Testament Israel expired with the end of that state (19:4). These laws should be applied in modern societies only to the extent that `the general equity thereof' makes appropriate. This suggests a method very similar to that adopted by Calvin (or indeed Bahnsen when he considered the applicability of parapets). The Westminster divines were in fact working within a situation of extreme political flux. The Civil War was still in progress and within six years Parliament would execute the king and Britain would become a republic. Issues of church-state relations, antinomianism, liberty of conscience and threats of anarchy dominated debate. Given this background, if the Westminster divines had been theonomists, they would surely have made this crystal clear in their final document (Barker and Godfrey, p. 326). In fact, although they represented a range of views, with some probably willing to countenance specific theonomic applications though not the fundamental theonomic interpretation of the law, they were not theonomists. Even a rigorist like Rutherford did not wish the Mosaic penalties to be applied against sabbath-breakers (Barker and Godfrey, p. 341).
So it seems that Reformed theologians and politicians in 1640s England refused to take the opportunity of very unusual constitutional conditions to impose a theonomic state. It is perhaps even more notable that their Puritan counterparts in New England at about the same time did not introduce theonomy into the New World (Barker and Godfrey, pp. 351-84). John Cotton's An Abstract of the Laws of New England should not be regarded as representative of New England Puritanism and neither did his views gain official standing (Barker and Godfrey, p. 377). In any case, contrary to the claims of Bahnsen (pp. 549-69), Cotton may not have been an early theonomist (Barker and Godfrey, p. 339, and see also Bahnsen, pp. 556-7). Notwithstanding the fact that they could introduce laws starting from scratch and had deduced the idea that something comparable to God's national covenant with Old Testament Israel was still possible for a nation state in the Christian era, the New England Puritans do not seem to have been theonomists and the full range of Old Testament death penalties was not applied.
6. The sociology of theonomy
If theonomy does not come out of the stable of mainstream Reformed thought, where then does this dark horse come from? Barker and Godfrey suggest that in some ways theonomy is peculiarly rooted in the sociology of the late-twentieth-century USA (p. 246). The apparent simplicity of theonomic ethics, with the implication that social order and prosperity can be regained through obedience to those laws, may appear very attractive to middle Americans and US Evangelicals and fundamentalists (there is a lot of overlap between the sociological and religious categories) who have been disoriented by the loss of Protestant political and cultural ascendancy in the USA, the development of racial pluralism and the relative economic decline of America, which over two decades has squeezed middle-class and blue-collar living standards. In other words, theonomy appears an attractive exit for those who find that the American dream may have become a dead end. Of course, we should beware of falling into the trap of sociological reductionism. Ultimately theonomy should stand or fall according to the merits of its biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, some of the sociological insights have validity. After all, why did we have to wait until twentieth-century America for theonomy to appear? Why was it absent in other places and times where Reformed or evangelical Christianity was strong (seventeenth-century Scotland or the Netherlands, nineteenth-century England or even, dare one say it, twentieth-century Northern Ireland)?29
7. Theonomist reluctance to accept that believers may have to suffer
Underlying much of the theonomic approach may be a pretty thin view of suffering. In the theonomic scheme of things, the righteous will be healthy and wealthy but the wicked the reverse (this is how they read, for example, Psalm 37:25). Could it be that theonomists are making a similar mistake to that of an unbalanced charismaticism in assuming that believers are guaranteed a royal road to prosperity and healing? The theonomist may have adopted something akin to the `Name it, claim it' philosophy of some charismatics and expanded it to the national level. In other words, theonomy is all about healing the USA and then the world. Obedience at the national level is expected to prompt such divine blessing that political and economic decline will be reversed. Bahnsen is explicit about this; obedience to theonomy brings the national blessings described in Deuteronomy 28 but disobedience will bring the curses described in the same chapter.30 The weakness in this line of argument is the same as that underlying health-and-wealth theology. God may indeed choose to bless the obedient with physical strength and material riches (there is biblical precedent for this). Equally, and the Bible also provides instances of this (e.g. Job and Jeremiah), he may decide that the righteous remain less well off in human terms than their unrighteous counterparts. The same could also be true at the level of nations. The theonomists tend to have post-millennialist expectations of a future golden age coinciding with the implementation of their programme. In fact, the downside of the theonomist activism and optimism noted earlier is that it seems to spring in large part from a sometimes triumphalistic post-millennialism (Barker and Godfrey, pp. 197-224). The danger of this outlook is that they disparage the present church. In contrast the New Testament presents the paradox that although the church in the interim between Christ's first and second comings is in fact suffering (1 Cor. 4:10-13, Phil. 3:10), it is also at the same time triumphant (Barker and Godfrey, p.216).
Conclusions
I have argued that theonomy, like the curate's egg, is good in parts. Even if the good is outweighed by a variety of flaws, there is still the possibility that the theonomy movement could bring net benefits to the rest of the church by forcing the wider evangelical and Reformed community to come to grips with what obedience to God's law means today.
At their most expansive the theonomists claim to have found the solution to all problems of identifying a biblically based personal and social ethic. They go so far as to argue that any alternative to the application of the Old Testament laws in exhaustive detail exalts human autonomy and hence sinfulness. In other words, it is either theonomy or autonomy; there is no other choice.31 In practice, however, as I have argued, the theonomic claim of the `continuing validity of the Mosaic law in exhaustive detail' is not very helpful, since theonomists, or at least the wiser amongst them, do not really mean what those words seem to mean. Bahnsen, for example, concedes that on occasions the laws cannot be applied directly to the modern world. Thought is required to provide the necessary cultural contextualisation. Once Bahnsen has admitted this, it must be wondered whether the gap in principle relative to the traditional Reformed approach to the Old Testament laws is all that large. After all, the Westminster Confession of Faith allowed for the application of Old Testament laws to the extent that their `general equity' demanded. The old Reformed tripartite division of the law between the moral (of eternal validity), the ceremonial (abrogated because fulfilled in Christ) and the civil (applying specifically to Israel, though it may be possible to draw lessons for modern societies), may still be valid.32
The virtue of theonomy has been to remind us of the wealth of detailed information provided in the Mosaic law. This is case law33 whereas the Ten Commandments set out the general principles of God's moral law. In the case law we are confronted with God's priorities - the God who hates, amongst other things, blasphemy, sexual perversion and commercial dishonesty - and these serve as a valuable antidote against being conditioned by the standards of secular humanism and indeed the whole spirit of autonomy and antinomianism which the theonomists see as so prevalent in modern thought and practice (Bahnsen, pp. 279-314).
Theonomy also forces us all to think more about the role of the state as an enforcer of civil or social righteousness (distinguished from the personal righteousness which is a consequence of salvation). The theonomists accord a very heavy responsibility to government in enforcing an outward obedience to God's laws. The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformers and Puritans also gave a wide role to the state in upholding morality.34 In contrast twentieth-century Evangelicals have often been reluctant to ascribe such roles to government. This switch of position might be seen as justifiable adaptation to changed circumstances (e.g. the development of democracy). It might also be defended in principle, in terms of the victory of the philosophy of a `free church in a free state' which was strongly represented within nineteenth-century Dutch and American Calvinism, which saw the state as a neutral holding the ring for plurality of Christian confessions and other faiths (for support of this view, see Barker and Godfrey, pp. 225-42). 35 However, it must be wondered whether the theonomists might be right in arguing that even many evangelical Christians now lack either the moral courage or the intellectual means to argue for the more widespread application of God's standards to the wider society outside of the church.
A number of people have helped to shape the argument expressed in this article. I am particularly grateful to the members of the Christian Study Group at Queen's University, and also to the Revd David Brice, the Revd Harold Cunningham and Dr Ian Wilson for their comments on an earlier draft.
Endnotes
1 A. Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, 1898), p. iii.
2 R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ, 1973), p.2.
3 Theonomists have not been slow to respond to this Reformed critique. For example, G. North in Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy (Tyler TX, 1991) regards the Westminster response as inadequately Reformed in its foundations (one sad legacy of the abandonment of Van Til's presuppositional apologetic), patchy and even sometimes downright dishonest.
4 An alternative and insightful approach to a definition is provided by A. Sandlin, `The Creed of Christian Reconstruction', Chalcedon Report (August, 1995), p. 2, who defines the movement as Calvinist, theonomist, presuppositionalist, postmillennialist and dominionist. Alternatively, `"Theonomy" which simply means "God's law" indicates the belief that all of the non-ceremonial Old Testament civil code is meant to be obeyed by all nations. "Reconstructionism" betokens the conviction that American society and public policy are in a desperate state, salvageable only by a radical effort to bring the nation in line with norms of scripture'; D.L. Duncan, `Moses' Law for Modern Government: the Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstruction Movement', Premise II:5 (1995), pp. 4-16.
5 In Mark 7:19 Christ set aside the dietary laws, so Matthew 5: 17-18 cannot be a statement of the continuing validity of the law in exhaustive detail.
6 A situation sometimes blamed on the absence of a `Christian mind' able to discern the distinctively Christian `third way' in each situation (H. Blamires, The Christian Mind , London, 1963, p. 3 ; though see P. Miller, Into the Arena, Eastbourne, 1992, pp. 139-41, for a different view).
7 Bahnsen's dismissal of the United Presbyterian Church of the USA Conference of 1967. See also, North, op. cit., pp. 89-91, who gives a long list of interesting questions of applied Christianity which mainstream churches and their seminaries usually duck.
8 Rodney Clapp, in Christianity Today (Feb 20, 1987), p. 19. Since Clapp came not to praise theonomy but to bury it, it is worth noting that from within the movement itself have come expansive claims of its activism and optimism. Indeed, these have been likened to some of the great ideologies. `The most effective social movements of the twentieth century's masses - Marxism, Darwinian science, and militant Islam - have held variations of the three doctrines that are crucial for any comprehensive program of social change: providence, law and optimism'; G. North, `Free Market Capitalism', in R.G. Clouse (ed.),Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics (Downers Grove, IL, 1984), pp. 27-65. North implies that theonomy is similarly equipped and therefore is the only school of Christian thought sufficiently well armoured in intellectual and spiritual terms to take on `enemy' world views and win.
9 Of particular strength has been the Amsterdam school of Dutch Calvinist thought, e.g. A. Kuyper's 1898 Stone Lectures, Lectures on Calvinism, op. cit.
10 Miller, op. cit. , p. 7. In the vast body of Calvin's writings there are certain things which reconstructionists could point to as proto-theonomy. Calvin was at least a dominionist who regarded God as, `legislateur et roy' of the universe and he looked for a time when `God is purely worshipped by all, and all the world is reformed', W. Bouwsma, John Calvin (Oxford, 1988), p. 192.
11 See P. Johnson, Modern Times (London, 1992); on guilt, p. 41; on `political violence', pp. 687-9; and on moral relativism, pp. 5-11.
12 Jubilee Policy Group, `Planning for Survival: A Family Policy for the Twenty First Century', Insight, 5 (1994).
13 G. Dawson, `God's Creation, Wealth Creation and Idle Redistributors', in D. Anderson (ed.), The Kindness that Kills (London, 1984), pp. 13-20.
14 J. Atherton, Christianity and the Market (London, 1993).
15 D. Anderson (ed.), The Kindness that Kills, B. Griffiths, The Creation of Wealth (London, 1984), p. 9, and Atherton , op. cit.
16 See the arguments of two American Evangelicals, R. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (London, 1978), and J. Wallis, The Call to Conversion (Tring, 1981). Their claims are in some ways similar to those advanced by exponents of liberation theology; e.g. U. Duchrow, Global Economy: A Confessional Issue for the Churches (Geneva, 1987).
17 Cf. J. Stott's argument that we can overcome the hermeneutical problem of our cultural imprisonment plus the cultural conditioning of the biblical authors through cultural transposition; The Contemporary Christian (Leicester, 1993), pp. 186-206.
18 Duncan, op. cit. , p. 8.
19 Duncan, op. cit., p. 13.
20 Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators (Tyler TX, 1981) a clear attempt to rebut Sider, op. cit. See also G. North, `Editor's Introduction', in G. Grant, In the Shadow of Plenty (Fort Worth, Nashville, 1986), p. xiii. North in fact argues that longstanding poverty is always a sign of sin and the consequent curse delivered by God: G. North, Unconditional Surrender: God's Programme for Victory (Tyler TX, 1981).
21 Given their general views about the nature of poverty and the appropriate sphere of government intervention in the economy it is not surprising that theonomists regard state-to-state international development aid as illegitimate. The theonomists would probably argue that they do have an adequate response to the plight of the Third World through a combination of mission activity (which would implant an ethos of the law-order of the Bible), private giving and free trade (W. Greene, `Theocratic Norms in the Context of International Political Economy', Paper Presented to the Southern Political Science Association (Atlanta, Nov. 3-5, 1994).
22 See Christian Aid, `Who Runs the World?', (July 1994). And for an evaluation of this point of view Atherton, op. cit., p. 16, and H. McRae, `A Bumpy Road from Bretton Woods', in The Independent, July 21, 1994.
23 For examples of Christians who believe that the rich countries cause the poverty of the Third World see Sider, op. cit., Wallis, op. cit., and Duchrow, op. cit. B. Griffiths, Morality and the Market Place (London 1982), pp. 125-55, provides a vigorous rebuttal of their views. For opposing sides of the debate in secular terms see Oxfam, Africa Make or Break (Oxford, 1993), and World Bank, From Stagnation to Recovery (Washington DC, 1993).
24 For a Christian (though non-theonomic) representative of the new right see M. Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (London, 1988). One summary of theonomic economics notes the following elements: no state intervention in the market economy, no state provision of educational and health services, and no state monopoly in the issue of money (S.C. Perks, `The Reconstructionist View of Economics', Chalcedon Report (1996), pp. 22-4). Perks also notes the striking similarities to the conservative school of neo-Austrian economics exemplified by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek.
25 North. op.cit. (1991), pp. 274-5, has felt the need to tackle the example posed by Joseph's Egyptian administration. Joseph, he argues, cannot be used as a biblical justification for the activities of any modern central planner or bureaucrat because Joseph, uniquely, had the insight of a direct revelation from God and was righteously tyrannising over pagans. This was one case where the forecasts about the state of the macroeconomy did prove to be right! It is true that Joseph cannot provide an exact blueprint for modern governments but it is still significant that God would hardly have ordered Joseph to intervene in the economic management of society if this was per se sinful (Barker and Godfrey, p. 283).
26 Rushdoony, for example, was prepared to criticise what he viewed as incorrect biblical interpretation on the part of Calvin. On those occasions when Calvin was judged to have fallen under the influence of `classical humanism', Rushdoony accused him of producing `heretical nonsense' (op. cit., p. 9). Some theonomists would warn against the leaven of natural law thinking in Calvin - see particularly North, op. cit. (1991) p. 240.
27 `Theonomy Again', Free Church Monthly Record, (December, 1992), p. 273, where Knox and Calvin are quoted as apparently favouring the stoning of adulterers. As to the execution of rebellious youths, Luther is recorded as writing `would that we observed this law too'.
28 M. Schluter and R. Clements, Reactivating the Extended Family (Cambridge, 1986).
29 The lack of any significant theonomy movement in Northern Ireland at present is in some ways surprising, given the presence of characteristics which might assist the development of such thinking: cultural openness to the South and Middle America of the USA, a strong Calvinist tradition, a preference amongst many Northern Ireland Protestants for very literalistic readings of the Bible, the history of use of state power to encourage particular religious adherences, weak development of socialist political parties, the Troubles after 1969 and hence the perceived need for a tough law and order policy, a receptiveness amongst many Protestants to ideas of a national covenant and `a chosen people'. My guess is that some Northern Ireland Protestants (maybe part of the rural or fundamentalist section of Democratic Unionist Party support) are partial theonomists without realising it. Given all of this, consideration of theonomy may be of particular relevance in Northern Ireland.
30 Bahnsen, p. ix. Similarly North, op. cit. (1991), vigorously defends the thesis that God brings predictable positive and negative sanctions in new covenant history. To give North due credit, he has been able to point out that it was not always the case that amillennialism was as prevalent in mainstream Reformed thinking as has been the case since, say, the 1930s. Moreover, he could be right that amillennialism often degenerates into `pessi-millennialism' and hence that postmillennialism is more likely to catch and hold the young or keen or activist. However, considerations of expediency or pragmatism do not clinch his case. North may be right that the graph line of Christendom's progress has been upwards since the resurrection and ascension, but, as a trained economic historian, he should be open to the possibility of cylical fluctuations around that trend. It is notable that North asserts that it is long-term poverty or prosperity which is the outcome of God's curse or blessing. Sometimes the deeds done by one generation are punished or rewarded only in the next (or even later).
31 Bahnsen, p. 307. For theonomy to prevail would require an unmanageable crisis of the present world system, which theonomists believe likely, and a Christian revival on a heretofore unseen scale, which theonomists believe is inevitable (Greene, op. cit.).
32 Though as Schluter and Clements, op. cit., argue, it may be a mistake to assume that any given law can be allocated to just one category. Instead a single law could combine moral, ceremonial and civil aspects.
33 See how Paul uses, and yet also extends, the case law of Deut. 22:10 to support the principle provided in 2 Cor. 6:14.
34 Westminster Confession of Faith 23:2-3, though these sections should be interpreted in the light of 19:4. In other words, the broad thrust of the Confession is not theonomic (Godfrey and Barker, pp. 326-7).
35 The theonomy movement may have been of value as a challenge to the traditional post-1788 view which seems to have been prevalent in mainstream US Protestant churches, i.e. of the state as a neutral umpire holding the ring in a situation of religious pluralism. The theonomists have questioned whether such neutrality is sustainable in practice and even desirable in principle. However, this paper has not considered the church-state question and whether theonomists themselves blur the distinction between church and state. Although some theonomists have been anxious to deny this (e.g. Bahnsen, No Other Standard (Tyler TX, 1991), pp. 171-88), would theonomy in practice lead to the persecution of non-believers?
A Reformed Classic by Michael W. Kelley
No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics, Greg Bahnsen
(Tyler: Texas, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 345 pages, scriptural and general indexes.
Copyright 1992 Michael W. Kelley
Among present-day theological apologists, none stands higher than Greg Bahnsen. He is at the forefront of his profession. For sheer depth of insight, breadth of analysis, consistency of reasoning, vigor and incisiveness of argument, not to mention finesse of style, Bahnsen is unparalleled in talent. By most scholars in the field this appraisal would be received with an amused, even perfunctory, condescension; by some with an almost violent revulsion. The reason, of course, is that Greg Bahnsen is a 'hated' theonomist. To make matters worse, he is an articulate advocate of theonomic ethics, a thinker whom the guardian aristocracy of the theological citadels cannot hope to match in debate, let alone refute. To the masters of institutional and academic theology, theonomy is viewed as a fringe movement, if not quite heretical then a sinister error. Some may even view it with begrudging respect; but none will ever allow it a legitimate voice in the curricula of theological and ethical discourse. A man of Bahnsen's caliber ought to have been appointed to the "Van Til chair" of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary. The fact that that institution prefers to have, in succession, less able occupants of that position is evidence of the indefatigable opposition that anyone who professes the theonomic viewpoint in ethics can expect to encounter. To settle for fifth best when the best is available is a clear indication of the impoverishment of academic wisdom even in an institution that prides itself on its supposed heritage of intellectual excellence. The aversion to theonomy runs deep.
Theonomy has emerged in recent decades as a 'movement' which has disturbed the repose of the theological and ethical world of (so-called) evangelical Christian thought. At first, its detractors did not quite know what to make of it; then for a long time it was regarded with a studied indifference; finally, its growing influence excited apprehension among intellectual elites who then formed a rational distaste and a fierce antipathy to it. Theonomy was subjected to denunciation, ridicule, caricature and assailed with a ferocious clamor. Articles began to appear, notorious for the invective that was directed against this malignant ethical system. However, being longer on acrimony than on substantive rebuttal, most lacked credibility as serious theological debate. Soon the amazing output of theonomic writers was bound to attract attention in the theological establishments. Consequently, the faculty of the aforementioned seminary produced what it considered as the official "Reformed" response to theonomy.[1] Such endeavors, far from silencing the printing presses of the theonomic zealots, merely stir them to greater exertions in advancing the cause. It is by reason of this confrontation between theonomy and its detractors that Greg Bahnsen has produced No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics.
No Other Standard is Bahnsen's finest performance to date. This is not to suggest that his Theonomy in Christian Ethics is anything less than a landmark accomplishment.[2] It is simply meant to point out that the former work best exhibits the surpassing qualities of Bahnsen as an apologist and as a theological polemicist. It is clearly the best defense of theonomy yet published. The work is distinguished by its consistency of argument, its reasoned insight into Scripture, its eloquent and versatile control of the written medium[3], and above all by its honest devotion to God's Word as the sole authority for man in the realm of ethics for every (including the 'civil') area of life. Bahnsen clearly is a thinker and author who makes the case on Biblical grounds better than any other, theonomist or non-theonomist alike. It is a work that deserves to be placed in the company of such outstanding polemical treatises an Machen's The Virgin Birth of Christ and O.T. Allis's The Five Books of Moses.
That theonomy represents something unique in the area of theological ethics is not a claim that theonomists would deny. Bahnsen admits as much: "Theonomic ethics is a definable and distinct school of thought."(p. 19) But this in itself is no argument against it as Scripturally sound. For while it is true that theonomy is of recent appearance, and although it is easily distinguishable from other points of view, it is, however, a "school of thought" that has roots in a venerable and recognized theological context - viz., the historic Reformed theological tradition. For proof of this one may consult, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (19:I,II&V) which reads: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, and perpetual obedience....This law, after his fall, continued be a perfect rule of righteousness....The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others....Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation." It is hardly credible to assert, as do the critics of theonomy, that its position represents some strange new aberration in ethics. As the Reformed doctrinal heritage has been the only one to take seriously the law of God in ethical conduct for "justified persons as others", it cannot be alleged that theonomy is anything other than a further development and a contemporary application of this foundational confession. Furthermore, the core principle of the Reformed tradition - viz., Sola Scriptura - is as much at the heart of theonomy, perhaps more so, than is sometimes the case in those who oppose it. Consequently, it will not do to allege that there is a "Reformed critique" of theonomy without a better consideration of what has been 'historically' Reformed.
Still, although its roots lie in Reformed soil, it does represent a distinct approach to ethics in that it advances the core insight of Reformed doctrine along lines that the earliest reformers might have had intimations of, but no clear and compelling reason to trace out as have the theonomists. This is because the theonomists inhabit a world that has all but severed connection to its Christian past, whereas a Christian values-system as the ethical basis of culture and civilization (certainly in the West) was all but taken for granted by its theological forebears three hundred years ago. As modern culture and society proceeded to work out its humanistic ethical assumptions the results became obvious: Western Christian civilization, or what was left of it, entered a period of profound crisis, which is where we are at present. Believing that God's word is to be man's sole authority for all of life, and believing the problem to be ethical at bottom, and apprehending that the ethic of humanism was the source of the problem, it was deemed essential to 'reconstruct' a more self-consciously Biblical ethic. Consequently, for theonomy, the law of God, the only standard of right conduct that was adhered to by the reformers, was simply examined far more meticulously and with greater attention to the present situation than had hitherto been done.
Now it is just this emphasis on the law of God that has brought forth such a storm of criticism - and this, not so much from the thought-world of humanism as from so-called Christians! What is more, from so-called Reformed Christians! In Bahnsen's view, the basis for this perfervid disapprobation turns on the question of authority in the area of ethical conduct. Any ethic, if it expects to come to expression in human behavior, must take hold of man's conscience as a 'law'. If it is a Biblical ethic; i.e., if it has its source in God and His will for man, then it is absurd to deny that it can be anything other than 'God's law'. It is this assertion that has led the opponents of theonomy to denounce it as a new "legalism". But this claim, as Bahnsen observes, rests upon a false dispensational and antinomian hermeneutic that predisposes the mind of the interpreter in his approach to the study of Scripture. For the law of God, it is said, possesses validity only for the period of the Older Testament and not for the New Testament era in which the church presently exists. The argument is proffered, viz., that with the passing of Israel from the stage as the center of God's redemptive program, the so-called Mosaic law,[4] which was given solely to govern the life of Old Testament Israel, disappeared as well. There has been a change from old to new, and with it a new conception of ethical stipulation as well. While it is possible, even practical, to derive 'wisdom' from the law of Moses, it no longer possesses authority to bind the conscience of man, certainly not in any explicit detail, and absolutely not so far as anything other than 'personal' or perhaps 'inner-church' relationships are concerned. This is to say, the law of God retains no socio-political applicability for civil association. It is this presumption of discontinuance of God's law that, in Bahnsen's estimation, must be called into question; for such an assumption rests upon a hermeneutic that imposes conditions on Scripture from outside of Scripture. What seems clear to him, as to theonomists in general, is that "Sinful creatures are in no position to question or correct the wisdom of God at any point where He has chosen to speak", (p. 32) and with respect to His commandments He "expects His people to presume their continuing validity until He indicates otherwise". (p. 28) It is, therefore, inadmissible to dismiss the propriety of the Old Testament law (just because it is in the O.T.) "or its socio-political requirements in advance of particular exegesis of texts which would justify doing so - whether they appeal to dispensations, covenant-canons, or theocratic topology, etc..." (Ibidem) The debate, then, between theonomy and its critics turns on this hermeneutical question, which then comes to expression in terms of a distinct socio-political philosophy. These are the two dimensions around which the discussion of the book revolves.
The inveterate animadversions of the more severe opponents of theonomy at least scarcely conceal the obvious fact that most of them are little or altogether unfamiliar with the broad range of writings which have poured forth from theonomic writers. Most refuse resolutely to study their works in any depth with the result that ignorance mixed with disdain compels a wide distortion of the theonomic viewpoint. Theonomy would produce a social despotism, they charge, dictatorially regimented by an inner clique of intemperate and merciless "Ayatollahs" who would enforce a rigid conformity to God's law in its most gruesome detail, the slightest departure from which would bring swift and capital retribution. One might almost wonder how such ignominious ideas could percolate but for the gloomy and jaundiced imaginations of feverish souls. Some anti-theonomists seem to be unaware of the presuppositions that infelicitously color their attempt to make a case against theonomy. But, in Bahnsen's view, the influence of these presuppositions become apparent in the nature of logical fallacies, three of which stand out as the most objectionable.
The first concerns the question of the relationship between God's authoritative word and human conduct. Where does one begin in defining the connection? Does one begin at God's word and proceed to human conduct; or, does one start at human conduct and then ask to what extent God's word has authority over it? With theonomic opponents the latter is typically the case. As a result they tend to submit God's word to an extra-Biblical criterion. They begin with the question: "Is God's law a 'reasonable' ethic for today?" "Reasonableness", then, is made the a priori basis of what is acceptable as an ethical standard. For those who begin thus, the answer is invariably negative. And since theonomy begins with the former it is not refuted on the basis of Scripture, it is simply dismissed as "unreasonable". It is this assumption that induces Bahnsen's reply.
The issue before the theologian is not whether every detail of the law can be readily understood and applied to our modern culture in a way which is congenial to our feelings or mindset in the twentieth century. Our obligation to keep the whole law of God may not be judged on the basis of whether its specifics strike us as reasonable or fit into our present way of thinking or behaving. The issue is rather what God's word itself says about the law of God. Scripture must interpret itself regarding the validity of God's whole law today. (pp. 58 & 59).
A second fallacy, closely connected to the first, is an argument from a 'subjective impression' of what Scripture teaches verses a controlled exegesis of the objective text. Because we do not like Scripture upsetting our pre-conceptions, the proclivity is to retreat from the 'text' and to appeal instead to 'tenor'. One argues on the basis of overall impressions of Scripture as a whole rather than bothering to examine the details of its language. It is easier this way to make Scripture conform with our preconceived notions of what it must say about human conduct. Again Bahnsen responds: "Rather than allowing our present opinions and attitudes to be the standard by which we evaluate God's law, we ought to take God's law as the standard by which we evaluate and adjust our present opinions and attitudes!" (p. 60)
Lastly, there is what Bahnsen designates as "the argument from silence". (p. 67ff.) Briefly, this argument alleges that the Bible does not say that we today are to enforce the full scope of the Old Testament Mosaic law with its penal codes and sanctions. In other words, at the very least the Scripture says nothing (i.e., remains silent!) about observing these obligations for the church in post-ascension history. What is meant, then, by the term 'Bible' is really 'New Testament'. The contention is that the New Testament requires no such continuing validity; in fact, if anything it claims to supersede everything in the Old Testament having a normative necessity for the life of man. The dispensational hermeneutic is the controlling assumption behind this argument. The New Testament is maintained to be a canon of authority within a canon. If anything, a kind of semi-Marcionist thinking pervades the mind of the anti-theonomist on the question of the total authority of Scripture for the ethical behavior of man. Bahnsen's response is to the effect that those who adhere to this canon of interpretation are compelled to ignore or dismiss Jesus' own words on the matter in Matthew 5:17-19. For in this passage it requires a consummate ingenuity to deny that Jesus regarded the law of God ("the least stroke of a pen") as possessing a continuing validity "until heaven and earth disappear", and not simply until the New Testament era arrives. For theonomists, therefore, it is best to have as one's controlling assumption the continuation of all that pertains to the law of God, unless God Himself should modify or abolish such requirements.
To these three basic assumptions on the part of the opponents of theonomy other considerations are added which are needed to make the case against theonomy more persuasive, but are equally of dubious value. In the first place, critics often reason that no distinction exists between types of law - moral, judicial, ceremonial. Some, therefore, might argue that all three are in fact one and alike and are together abrogated as the quintessence of the Mosaic economy. None remains in force, for they have altogether been fulfilled in Christ. This is perhaps the more extreme position of those whose controlling assumptions are of the dispensational sort. On the other hand, there are those who perceive it necessary to make at lest one distinction, viz., that between the ceremonial and judicial laws which have been abrogated and the moral law (summarized in the commandments) which remains in force, albeit in a modified form in this age of grace. After all, it is difficult to get away from the thought that God still disapproves of adulterers, murderers, liars, stealers, idolaters, and so forth. So at least this much should continue as ethical obligation. But even so "grace" takes precedence over "law keeping". It is always supposed that grace and law stand in opposition to one another. But this is true only so far as the "achievement" of redemption and the restoration of communion with God is concerned, not as it regards men who have been redeemed. Grace does not oppose law, rather it establishes law. There is no other righteousness of God but that contained in His law, and it is faith (by grace) that appropriates this righteousness.
Regardless, theonomists do recognize distinctions in types of law. This, too, is the legacy of the historic Reformed tradition. Where theonomists have sought to modify this tradition is in the erroneous legal distinction between moral and judicial. These, to them, do not, and ought not to, define separate legal categories. They differ only in the nature of expression (what Bahnsen terms a "literary" [p. 94] difference). That is, moral law is a general or summary expression, whereas so-called "judicial" laws are delineations of specific applications of the former. What is more, both alike differ from laws governing ceremony or typology of redemption (what Bahnsen describes as "restorative" [pp. 93 & 94]). These latter clearly have a temporary application in that they point to the accomplished work of Christ. Naturally, with His finished work on the cross they cease any longer to require observation. However, the moral-judicial law remains in effect as a single moral and legal category of responsibility. And since the latter had civil as well as personal applicability in God's kingdom society in the past, they continue to have the same applicability in God's kingdom program for the present; unless one is prepared to maintain that God has two kingdoms in history.
It is due to the triumph of the dispensational hermeneutic in our day that scholars and teachers have precisely insisted upon a two-kingdoms theory in the interpretation of Scripture. On the one hand, there is the theocratic kingdom of Israel by which is meant that church and state were institutionally and jurisdictionally indistinguishable; and, on the other hand, the New Testament kingdom in which church and state are sharply separated. But behind this alleged distinction lurks a subtle dualism between the sacred and the secular. It comes to the fore as an antithesis between religious and civil. It is said that in the ancient theocracy the religious and the civil were indivisibly confused, whereas in the New Testament church and state must be divided as representative of the difference that now obtains between the religious and the civil. Furthermore, the lesson of Israel's theocracy only transfers to that of the church (the religious realm) and not to modern states (the secular realm). At the root of this assumption is that 'religious' defines only an aspect of man's life and does not undergird the whole of it, including the civil realm. But 'religious' must be that which defines the totality of man's life in God's creation. Even so, as 'religious' in all of his experience, man as God's creature is not morally self-defined or definable. Consequently, only God can legitimately and morally dictate the terms of man's life in every context of his creation experience. What Israel represented (or at least was meant to represent) was total 'civilization' in 'religious' subjection to this God-defined ethical requirement. It is the picture of a complete kingdom program for man inclusive of every possible institutional distinction. There is no legitimate Biblical reason for denying that the same applies to God's New Testament kingdom. Institutional differentiation does not imply a dualism between religious and secular. Church and state (or civil society) should be simply viewed as different aspects of a common civilizational agenda in which both alike are in 'religious' subjection to the will (law-word) of God. Having said this, then, it becomes necessary to examine the second portion of Bahnsen's (theonomy's) thesis, viz., that which concerns a social-political philosophy.
Beside the dispensational hermeneutic that sits at the heart of the theonomic opposition there also reposes an inveterate antinomian doctrine concerning human conduct. What many Christians fervently desire in their religious lives, that which they apprehend to lie at the basis of a restored communion with God, is passionately determined by what "their experience" in the matter predisposes them to accept. Not surprisingly, such souls are prejudiced towards that in the Scriptural revelation which promises to amplify the 'experience' of God that is so fulsomely solicited. What is looked for, more than anything, is that which appeals to one's assumptions of well-being. In this respect, in many circles there is an endless chatter about the "love" of God, of His "power" and His "blessings", and all such things as one might imagine to make life exciting and wonderful. But there is little disposition to tolerate what also occupies ample space in the Biblical revelation; and that is the necessity to submit in all things to the absolute authority of God. We readily look to God for things which we want, things which may even have their basis in something God Himself has promised to provide; however, we are less willing to give to God the things which He wants, viz., our obedience. Little does it even enter our minds that God convenantally conditioned the so-called blessings on the foundation of covenantal obedience to all that He commands. This frame of mind easily lends itself to a repudiation of God's law for civil society. Consequently, it characterizes the opponents of theonomy, not only theologically, but socio-politically.
Because most Christians divide life into sacred (religious) and secular (civil), and reduce the civilization (kingdom) of God to soul-salvation and 'church' matters primarily, they mostly withdraw from anything, other than what necessity imposes, having to do with civil society. Most certainly do not recognize any God-determined responsibility for civil society, except, of course, when Caesar compels us to disobey God. Then the obligation to resist must take precedence over all civic responsibility. But as to possessing a plan for the nature of civil society as such, most Christians adamantly deny that (after Israel) the Scripture offers any such guidance in the matter. Remarkably, some have taken exception to an attitude of monastic retreat from a Christian responsibility in society and politics. They would seriously contend that Christians must work for "justice" in all areas of life, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that Christians are not oddities in the social landscape and that their God stands in favor of justice and does not ignore the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, nor disregard the 'social' causes of their misery. As Christians we should 'get involved' and help to promote political and economic solutions to 'injustices' wherever they may be found. Those who hold such views believe that society, while it is preposterous to expect it to be Christian, should nevertheless be just, and accommodating to competing points of view. In doing so, then, one does not act on the basis of God's law, but on the basis of His love. The socio-political philosophy that encourages this involvement styles itself "principled pluralism". It regards theonomy with a withering scorn and contemptuously views it as a capricious tyranny.
To so-called pluralists[5] the law of God cannot be the moral authority upon which the modern state in its action should be guided. Rarely do they provide the least specific Biblical warrant for such a notion. In fact they make almost no appeal to Scripture except when it is a convenient sop to reassure their partisans that they have most Christians' approval for their vision of social action. Often they simply impose their notions on Scripture. They vehemently denounce the idea that a moral law from Scripture should guide political behavior; but, then, what moral law exits to guide such behavior? In what sense can they call themselves "principled"? If not Biblical "principle", then what? It stands to reason that it must be non-Christian. They pretend to acquiesce in the humanist ideal of suppressing different and antithetical religious outlooks in order to fashion a society that supposedly transcends any specific point of view. But humanism is not some benignly neutral ethical ideal. It is adamantly opposed to biblical moral principles as well as the sanctions which Scripture imposes for their violation. The ejection of the Christian moral viewpoint is essentially what defines humanism's entire purpose. It systematically opposes any notion of crime and punishment that derives its doctrine from Scripture. How can pluralists claim to support a Christian ideal of justice and, at the same time, agree in essence with humanism's deceptive ideal of justice that supposedly transcends every particular religious point of view? Can one truly accept that something called "justice" is possible that is not the conclusion of this or that system of belief? Can Christians ever accept the notion that their belief system, with its concept of justice, is anything but what God specifically says it is? For Bahnsen, pluralism is not only exegetically inexcusable, it is logically impossible. Accordingly, he avers:
When one religious philosophy requires the death penalty for murder, and another religious philosophy forbids the death penalty for murder, the state cannot conceivably give 'equal protection' to both viewpoints; whether it executes the murderer or not, the state will have violated one of the competing religious convictions, thus not honoring both equally. (p. 192)
There cannot be two moral standards for political behavior, and since the pluralists reject God's standard they are left with man's. Humanism's standard is statist in nature. What the state decides is what is just. Not surprisingly, pluralists are great supporters of politically engineered solutions to so-called injustices. The welfare[6] state, so dear to humanists, is the quintessence of their social philosophy.
All non-theonomists are essentially pluralists in their social thinking; that is, whenever perchance they happen to excogitate on such solemn affairs. More than anything, what they object to in theonomy so far as civil policy is concerned, is the concept that the magistrate is obligated not only legally to abide by Biblical ethical obligation, but that it is his sole duty to punish all such infractions (his own included) in accordance with the penal sanctions as documented in the law of God. (p. 211) It is not merely that this objection arises from the hermeneutical tenet that such legal-moral obligations are abolished for the church age, rather it is also accompanied by the deeply ingrained assumption that such a requirement could be fruitful of nothing but grave 'injustices'. The obligation to enforce the Biblical penal codes is furiously scoffed at as harsh and tyrannous. Apparently, the application of such a penal code was not harsh during the theocracy of Old Testament Israel. The primary purpose of such codes were (1) to protect the honor of God's name in Israel, and (2) to make known the fact that God is a God of justice and that He does what is right by the 'victims' of injustice. Is it any less so today? Are the critics prepared to tell the 'victims' of such crimes that it is ungracious to punish their offenders as God requires? Are they prepared to call God unjust Who decrees such stipulations? Or do they prefer man's justice to God's? Law (any law) is unenforceable apart from the application, or the threat of the application, of penalties in lieu of its demand. If law is to be at all effective in the restraint of evil behavior it cannot succeed in this respect if it does not threaten punishments against violators. This is true whether it be man-declared law or God-ordained law. Thus, some penal code is inescapable. What is of the highest importance in any system of justice is that the penal code should act to reinforce it, not contradict or subvert it. Are we prepared to say that man knows better than God what is just, and that God cannot possibly understand what degree of punishment best serves to promote it? There is no doubt that anti-theonomists much prefer man's justice to God's.
Nothing in the mind of the anti-theonomist resonates this sentiment against the application of Biblical penal codes quite like the repulsive issue of 'capital' punishment. So many of the judicial requirements found in the ancient law seem to demand the death penalty for their transgression. Is there no room for mercy and compassion? Are we to believe that a God of 'grace' would be so rigid and unyielding, and unrelenting so far as the weakness of man is concerned? Theonomists are vigorously attacked for holding to such an ''nflexible" application of these penal sanctions for today. But 'inflexible' is a term of emotion that predetermines one's attitude toward the word of God. In reality, anti-theonomists impugn God as inflexible! They refuse to allow God Himself to decide how any principle of flexibility is to be understood.
In the first place, theonomists do not make some absurd claim that Scripture prescribes the death penalty for every, or even most, committed crimes. They maintain the jus talionis principle because Scripture itself does so. This is the rule of "an eye for an eye." (Deuteronomy 19:21; 25:12) It is the concept that the punishment fits the crime. (Hebrews 2:2) The "death" penalty, in other words, is only for those who deserve it. (Deuteronomy 21:22) Where theonomists differ from anti-theonomists is that they do not substitute man for God in the matter of who decides moral and legal worth. Secondly, it is even the case that where the death penalty is the "maximum allowable" as stipulated in the law, in most instances it is permissible to mitigate or commute it to a lesser punishment if the "victim" so chooses.[7] In the concern for justice, God permits the victim to participate in the decision. In this way, it is not just God Who is satisfied that justice has been done, but the human victim as well. Could anything be more compassionate? Furthermore, this ideal of justice and punishment places strict limitation on the state in its responsibility to "bear the sword". (p. 213) Humanists love to speak of "fairness", "equality", and "justice" in the abstract. To them the language of "rights", "freedom", and "mutual consent" govern judicial discourse in advance of any responsibility to redress grievances. This allows political decisions arbitrarily to determine the nature of punishment. In practice, it offers injustice for justice in that the criminal perpetrator is a priori protected by abstract principles[8] that are purely decided by man-centered criteria and not God's law.
Theonomy is a civilizational agenda of total Biblical proportions, not merely, as it is cast in the aspersions of its detractors, the grotesque political platform of some cult movement on the outer margins of modern Christianity. Because it sees the root nature of man to be religious-covenantal in each of the three societal areas of God's creation purpose for him - family, church, and civil society - it withdraws no obligation from any of these domains to conform in all particulars to the absolute moral authority of God's written word. It admits of no dualism between religious (family & church) matters and civil affairs (state) so far as responsibility to comply to the pattern and detail of righteous behavior as found in that written word and nowhere else. There is not one ethic for Christians in church, family, and personal relationships and another ethic for civil, social, and political concerns. God's kingdom is a civilization for man, and the sole authority of His law-word provides the only ethical foundation upon which it can be possibly constructed. Naturally, such a point of view necessarily collides with the humanistic assumptions that emanate from the kingdom of man (which is rooted in 'the Lie'!). The two cannot co-exit. One or the other must triumph. The pretentious nonsense of 'pluralism" that Christians and humanists can share a common civilizational program based upon a mutually agreed upon idea' of justice is already the rejection of a Biblical-covenantal viewpoint. Humanists will cooperate with no one who claims that the law of God is the irreducible moral authority over a total civilizational project. The pluralist's concession on this crucial matter means that humanists alone will set the agenda; and this, not just in the realm of civil society, but for church and family as well. Christians fool themselves if they think this is not so.
Already the outcome of the humanist vision is being felt in the area of civil law and political behavior. For centuries the Christian idea of law, as rooted in God's law, held this humanist aspiration in check. But beginning from the time of the Enlightenment a gradual shift began to emerge until, as Harold Berman has aptly noted, "the Western legal tradition, like Western civilization as a whole", is in the process of "undergoing in the twentieth century a crisis greater than it has ever known before..."[9] Today a revolution is underway in the area of law and the legal tradition in which it is being loosed from its mooring in Christian moral obligation and has become the instrument for political and statist manipulation. Berman is correct to observe that the Western legal tradition was the product of beliefs or postulates that derived from Christian ethical order, which order was not seen simply as an instrument of the state for the purpose of effectuating the will of those who exercise political authority.[10] Such a vision of law and legality was the foundation of an objective and permanent criterion of justice and not the subjective and utilitarian implement of ideological domination. Now, however, with the rise of humanism to the control of the civilizational agenda all that is changing. Accordingly, Berman asserts:
Today those beliefs or postulates - such as the structural integrity of law, it ongoingness, its religious roots, it transcendent qualities - are rapidly disappearing, not only from the minds of philosophers, not only from the minds of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, law teachers, and other members of the legal profession, but from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality, concerned more with immediate consequences and less with consistency or continuity.[11]
In other words, the idea of law is becoming the means politically to reconstruct society on totally humanistic lines. Law is made to be an instrument in the hands of political Messiahs who intend to jettison the totality of Western civilization's Christian past and to remodel all of man's life in the interest of humanist ideals exclusively. It is a tool for tyranny, injustice in the guise of justice. It was Frederic Bastiat who, with laudable perception, once decried the perverse tendency that was beginning to make its appearance in the minds of modern men who wished to substitute legality for justice as a tool by which to achieve politically engineered outcomes for whatever was deemed pragmatically and subjectively desirable:
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are 'just' because law makes them so.[12]
This confusion in law and morality has made it possible for the modern state to implement laws simply in the interest of furthering socially desired outcomes - which outcomes are more often forms of injustice. The hidden assumption is always that man knows what is 'just' and the means to promote it. The cynical truth is that 'justice' is what the politically powerful say it is.
Theonomy accepts that only God can tell man what is just and what forms of punishment injustice deserves in order that a just civil order may be both legitimately and morally upheld. As contemporary 'evangelicalism' has demonstrated its bankruptcy so far as a Biblically-based social agenda is concerned, more and more those who readily discern that the moral rot of society cannot be arrested by rapturous appeals to the "love of Jesus" are finding that this school of ethical thought offers a substantive alternative to both the entertainment industry religion and the scholastic naval-watching that is so much in evidence in present-day theological academia. To them, Bahnsen's book will be both stimulating and reassuring. CM
Notes
1. William S. Barker & W. Robert Godfrey, Eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990). This work comprises various contributions from faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia & California.
2. Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1984). What is of outstanding importance in this work is Bahnsen's magisterial exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20.
3. As a literary production the book is brilliant. There is only one major flaw in this regard, and that is the persistent grammatical abuse know as the "split infinitive". E.g. (incorrect) "to thoroughly examine", (correct) "to examine thoroughly"; (incorrect) "to greatly overstate", (correct) "greatly to overstate", and so forth. This literary faux pas is a common mistake with writers nowadays which needs to be pointed out.
4. There is a persistent refusal on the part of theonomic opponents to recognize that although the law first appeared in comprehensive and propositional form with Moses it does not follow that it is anything less than "God's" law, hence permanently valid.
5. What Gary North styles "political polytheists": see his Political Polytheism, (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989)
6. "Welfare" as defined by humanists, not by God. And so far as politics is concerned "welfare" is anything that insures that the "politically correct" maintain power, and that "Biblical" principles are excluded from consideration.
7. For a splendid discussion of this idea, see Gary North, Victim's Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice, (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
8. E.g., the "rights" of homosexuals; or the "rights" of consenting adults; or the "right" a woman has over her own reproductive organs, or even the "right to life". Anti-abortionists are no less guilty in this respect than abortionists. Further, such considerations as the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the like, are all examples of stated human ethical values promoted in advance of God's law. All such ideals are nothing but the declaration of war against God's moral authority over man.
9. Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 33.
10. Berman, p. 38.
11. Berman, p. 39.
12. Frederic Bastiat, The Law, (Irvington-on-Hudson: The Foundation For Economic Education, Inc. 1981), p. 13.
Return to Contra Mundum Root Page
Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology And Theonomy by Religioustolerance.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
History
Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology and Theonomy are not denominations or faith groups. Rather, they are interrelated beliefs which are followed by members of a variety of Catholic and Protestant denominations. They have no connection at all to Reconstructionist Judaism, which is a liberal group within Judaism. Generally speaking:
Christian Reconstructionism is a belief that society, particularly in the United States, has seriously degenerated morally and religiously and must be totally rebuilt to Biblical standards.
Dominion Theology is derived from Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them
rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all
the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (NIV)
Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave mankind dominion over the
animal kingdom. Dominion theologians believe that that this verse commands Christians to
bring all societies, around the world, under the rule of the Word of God.
Theonomy (Greek for "God's Law") is the concept that all of the non-ceremonial laws given
to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures) are
binding on people of all nations forever.
The term Reconstructionism has been used to refer to various combinations of the preceding three terms. This type of confusion is common in the field of religion. Many words such as Christian, Fundamentalist, Occult, New Age, Reconstructionism, Unitarian etc. have been assigned so many different interpretations by different groups in different eras that they are almost meaningless.
Its most common form, Theonomic Reconstructionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. It originated in the United States from the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition. Its goal is the peaceful conversion of the United States government to a theocracy, which is based on the Mosaic Law of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which the entire world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it if it is properly presented to them.
All religions other than Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian institutions would no longer be allowed to function. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and exterminated. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would be executed. To our knowledge, this is the only religious movement in North America in which many of its members advocate genocide for followers of minority religions. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society."
Leading writers in the movement are:
Greg L. Bahnsen of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies
David Chilton
Gary DeMar
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics. He is a prolific author.
Larry Pratt: head of the Gun Owners of America and English First, a group opposed to
non-English speaking immigrants and bilingual education. Author of "Armed People
Victorious" which documents Guatemalan and Philippine militias and para-military death
squads. Campaign co-chair of the Buchanan presidential campaign in 1996. Member of the
Virginian state legislature.
John Quade
Rousas John Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation is often considered the founder of
Christian Reconstructionism. Author of Institutes of Biblical Law.
Rev. Andrew Sandlin
Beliefs
According to Gary DeMar, a popular Reconstructionist author, the foundation of Reconstructionism is a unique combination of three Biblical doctrines:
1.Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship with Christ
2.Individuals guiding their lives closely by following a specified subset of Biblical laws
3.Promoting of the world-wide Kingdom of God. 1
Specific beliefs include
A rejection of Antinomianism: the belief that salvation is obtained totally through faith and not
through performing good works and living a moral life
Presuppositionalism: the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true. They do not attempt to
prove that God exists or that the Bible is true.
Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free of error
Postmillennialism: the belief that Christ will not return to earth until after all nations in the
world have converted to Christianity. This will not take place for some considerable time; it
will not be a painless transition. Most Fundamentalists and other Evangelists are
Premillenialists; they believe that Christ's return will occur soon.
The laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures can be divided into two classes: moral and
ceremonial. Christians are not required to follow the ceremonial laws, because Jesus has
liberated them from that responsibility. However, all persons must follow the Scripture's
moral law. (Non-reconstructionist Christians generally divide these laws into three classes:
moral, civil and ceremonial law, and generally believe that most Old Testament laws are no
longer binding on Christians.)
The laws given by God to the ancient Israelites are all reflections of God's character, which is
unchangeable. The laws were not tailor-made to meet the unique needs and environment of
Israel at the time. Thus those laws are intended for all nations and all eras, including the
present time.
The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been
specifically rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures. "Only if we find an
explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic
fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic
law." 12 This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:
"Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV)
Civil laws must match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their
standards) is also to be criminalized.
The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic theory are those derived
from the Bible
In every aspect of life, there are only two options: God-centered or man-centered; Theonomy
or autonomy. Their political goal is to ban the latter, everywhere. Each individual, family,
church, government and society must be reconstructed to eliminate sin. Each Christian has
the responsibility to contribute to this conversion.
They oppose
"inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go
against the very community which marriage is designed to establish."
R.J. Rushdoony, "The Institutes of Biblical Law", Craig Press, Nutley, NJ (1973), P. 257.
One of the tasks of Christians is to replace Judaism with Christianity. According to David
Chilton:
"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one
of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the
faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel."
David Chilton, "The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation", Dominion
Press, Ft. Worth, TX (1984), P. 127.
Of course, there exists diversity of opinion within the Reconstructionist movement. Not all followers will necessarily agree with the above statements of the movement's leaders
Practices
If they gained control of the US or Canadian federal government, there would be many changes:
the use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws
are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior,
idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. Presumably that
would be done by stoning people to death or burning them alive, as the Bible requires.
an individual who does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus
guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christians. At
the present time, they total two-thirds of the human race.
the status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew
Scriptures.
it would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and
regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery.
Polygamy and the keeping of concubines would be logically permitted as well.
The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system would be celebrated once more. Every 50 years,
the control of all land reverted to its original owners. This would require every part of North
American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons
of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native
Hawaiians.
governments would have balanced budgets
income tax rates would be eliminated
the prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for
some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be
little need for warehousing of convicted criminals.
legal abortions would be banished; those found to be responsible for illegal abortions would
be executed.
The reinstitution of slavery appears to be a hot button item among Reconstructionists. We have received a few negative E-mails which complained that the movement does not recommend slavery. But we have received many more Emails from Reconstructionists claiming that legalizing slavery would be good for North America.
AANEWS reported in 1999-MAR that a recent issue of the Chalcedon Foundation's monthly journal, the Chalcedon Report, contained an article by Reconstructionist minister Rev. W.O. Einwechter, called "Stoning Disobedient Children." He is alleged to have suggested that capital punishment should be used on "a grown son who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing...The execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful and preventative..." Einwechter is the vicemoderator of the Association of Free Reformed Churches, and a vice president of the National Reform Association, a group that advocates the inclusion of Christianity in government. 7,8
Joseph Busche and Bill Curry have written a Tennessee Law Book. Their intent was to show that laws to implement various Old Testament laws would sound extremely intrusive today. See: http://www.pitt.edu/~jrbst31/tennessee.html
Conflicts with other Fundamentalist Groups
Theonomic Reconstructionism differs from more common forms of Fundamentalism in a number of key areas. Reconstructionists:
emphasize the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures vs. the Christian Scriptures
believe that all Christians must attempt to reconstruct society along ancient Jewish lines
believe that, once they attain power, they will suppress other religions through genocide,
rather than through proselytizing
would require each individual to strictly follow the Mosaic law
believe that Jesus' second coming is in the far future
References
1.J. Ligon Duncan, III, "Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological
Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement", Premise, Vol II, No. 5, 1995-MAY-27.
See: http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html
2.An essay on Christian Reconstructionism with many links is at:
http://abacus.oxy.edu/qrd/www/rrr/recon.html
3.The Chalcedon Foundation of Dr. R.J. Rushdoony is at: http://www.chalcedon.edu
4.The Southern California Center for Christian Studies (founded by the late Dr. G.L.
Bahnsen) is at: http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant/
5.The Institute for Christian Economics, (ICE) founded by Dr. Gary North, has many
Christian books free for downloading. See: http://www.freebooks.com/ You need the Acrobat
Reader 3.0 program to access these books. But their site contains a hyperlink to Acrobat for
a free download.
6.Political Research Associates is a liberal group critical of the political right wing. They have
an essay on Christian Reconstructionism at: http://www.publiceye.org/pra/chrisrec.html
They also have an essay on Traditional Values, Racism, and Christian Theocracy at"
gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:7021/00/publiceye/1
7.Christian Worldview: Discipling the Nations... has a Reconstructionist page at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1492/.
8.Rev. Andrew Sandlin, "The Creed of Christian Reconstruction" at:
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jimmon/crc.htm
9.Robert Parsons, "Christian Reconstruction: A Call for Reformation and Revival" at:
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0505_Parsons_-_What_is_Re.html
10.Media House International of Melbourne FL has made available a series of articles by
leading Reconstructionists. See: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0496.html
11.Paul Thibodeau maintains a site that is critical of Reconstructionism. See "Christian
Reconstruction: God's Glorious Millennium?" at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cr.htm
12.Gary North, "The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments," Institute for
Christian Economics (1986)
Book References
1.G.L. Bahnsen "Theonomy in Christian Ethics"
2.G.L. Bahnsen "By This Standard"
3.G.L. Bahnsen "No Other Standard"
4.David Chilton's "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators"
5.George Grant and Mark Horne, "Legislating Immorality: The Homosexual Movement Comes
Out Of The Closet." (This book advocates the death penalty for homosexual behavior.)
6.R.J. Rushdoony "Institutes of Biblical Law"
7.News dispatch, untitled, by AANEWS, a service of American Atheists, 1999-MAR-13.
PREMISE / Volume II, Number 5 / May 27, 1995 / Page 4
Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement
A paper presented to the Social Science History Association Atlanta, Georgia, USA Saturday, October 15, 1994
Introduction
For many years now, students and professors in seminaries affiliated with evangelical denominations, as well as church members and pastors have puzzled over the Christian Reconstruction movement. Sometimes Reconstruction has been a matter of heated controversy: causing division in faculties, student bodies, and congregations. Other times it has merely been a matter of curiosity--a novelty which people do not quite understand, but are either attracted to or suspicious of. One common denominator, however, has been the generally fuzzy conception of just what Reconstruction is. The situation has been much the same amongst many of the theologians, journalists, political scientists, and sociologists. Reconstructionism has been labeled as anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, and extremist. This has led to a proliferation of misunderstandings by supporters, detractors, and analysts of the movement. And, needless to say, it has prevented clear, cogent appraisal of the Reconstructionist program. Since the movement has recently gained wider notoriety through Bill Moyers' documentary series God and Politics, and an exposé-style review in Christianity Today, and has exercised no insignificant influence on the Christian Right, it behooves us to devote some attention to the main points of this religious socio-political agenda.
It is not our primary purpose here to provide analysis, but to describe and define, and to supply a preliminary sketch of the theoretical and environmental origins of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. First, we will explain specifically what Christian Reconstruction is. The goal here is to delineate the distinctive tenets of the movement more clearly than they have been heretofore. Opponents of Reconstruction have generally failed to identify what is truly distinctive about its position, preferring (uncharitably) to caricature it rather than define it. Further, proponents of the movement occasionally vacillate between ambiguity and dogmatism when asked about the distinguishing characteristics of their position. As we have noted already, this is an impediment to critical discourse. Second, this paper offers an initial suggestion of the intellectual and sociological origins of the Reconstructionist movement. This paper is purposely brief and necessarily technical in places, though it strives for clarity and simplicity. Of course, this author has no pretensions of having provided an exhaustive treatment of a subject which has attracted much written attention (and stirred considerable ecclesiastical and political controversy in recent years, as well). One trusts, however, that this will prove a useful contribution to the ongoing evaluation of Christian Reconstructionism by social scientists and historians.
I. What is Christian Reconstructionism?
Since reversing the "Great Reversal" in the 1970s, evangelical socio-political thought has fallen broadly into three categories: evangelical liberals, conservatives, and reconstructionists. The later two categories are differentiated by the superadded distinctives of the reconstructionists. Broadly speaking, a reconstructionist is "a Christian who believes it is his or her responsibility to challenge the anti-Christian character of society and culture. The reconstructionist sees it as an obligation to seek to change society in ways that will bring it into conformity with the teaching of Scripture." To further specify, we may quote popular Reconstructionist author Gary DeMar who says:
Reconstructionism is a distinctive blending of certain biblical doctrines. They are (1) personal regeneration, (2) the application of biblical law to all areas of life, and (3) the advance of the already-present kingdom in history through the preaching of the gospel and the empowering of the Holy Spirit.
Individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds and ecclesiastical communions are influenced by and committed to these ideals, from conservative Roman Catholics to Episcopalians to Presbyterians to Pentecostals. Arminian and Calvinist, charismatic and non-charismatic, high Church and low Church traditions are all represented in the broader umbrella of Reconstructionism (often in the form of the "Christian America" movement).
A. Names or Labels
Not surprisingly then, many labels are associated with the Christian Reconstruction movement. It has been called: "Dominion Theology," "Theonomy," "Christian Reconstruction," or merely "Reconstructionism" among other things. Oftentimes these labels are employed more or less interchangeably (by both those within and without the movement). Nevertheless, each of them point to a distinctive element of Reconstructionist theory, elements not held to by all who are influenced by the movement. "Dominion" intimates the reconstructionist belief that the cultural mandate (Genesis 1:26) obligates all Christians to work for the bringing of human society under the dominion of God's Word. "Theonomy" which simply means "God's law" indicates the belief that all of the non-ceremonial Old Testament civil code is meant to be obeyed by all nations. "Reconstruction" betokens the conviction that American society and public policy are in a desperate state, salvageable only by a radical effort to bring the nation in line with norms of Scripture.
B. Types and Groups
In light of this exegesis of various labels used in the movement it becomes apparent, for instance, that one may be a Christian reconstructionist without being a "theonomist" (though not vice versa). Hence, there are two major types or classes of reconstructionists: theonomic and non-theonomic. T. David Gordon is absolutely correct when he says:
As socioreligious phenomena, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction are closely related. The individuals involved in the one are ordinarily involved in the other. However, theologically and religiously they can be distinguished. Christian Reconstructionists exist in a variety of forms, and are ordinarily united in their belief that the Western world, and especially the United States, has departed from the Judeo-Christian ethical basis that once characterized its public discourse, with devastating results. Positively, Reconstructionists wish to see the United States return to a more biblical approach, or even a more Judeo-Christian approach, to the issues of civil life. Theonomy is more specific than this, though it does not disagree with it. Theonomy wishes to see every nation conform its civil practices to those revealed in the Mosaic legislation. Thus, Theonomy is more comprehensive than Reconstruction (theoretically concerned that all nations observe the Mosaic legislation) and much more specific about the legislation that it believes is to be observed. Theonomy does not wish merely a return to a biblical ethic, or a Judeo-Christian ethic, but to the ethic of the Sinai covenant.
It is important, however, to note that the intellectual origins and leadership of the movement emanate from the "theonomic reconstructionists." Even within this more narrowly defined group we find significant differences of emphasis and opinion in the writings of Rousas J. Rushdoony (The Chalcedon Foundation), Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics), and Greg Bahnsen (Southern California Center for Christian Studies). Nevertheless, it is from these sources that the ideology of the movement has flown.
II. Theonomic Christian Reconstructionism
A theonomic reconstructionist may be succinctly and fairly defined as "someone who believes that none of the non-ceremonial law of the Old Testament is set aside in the New and that all people, rulers and ruled alike, are under obligation to follow such law personally, and to enact it where appropriate in legislation." Christian Reconstructionism is theoretically a positivist, fundamentalist, Calvinist response to the moral-political forces unleashed by modernity in late twentieth-century United States. That is, Reconstructionism views all legitimate law as divine positive law (or an application thereof) and thus rejects natural law and social contract theory. It is also positivistic in its insistence on Scripturally-derived social, political, and economic theory (since it asserts that there is no true knowledge apart from the Bible). It is "fundamentalist" in its stress on the necessity of vital personal religion and biblical inerrancy, and it is Calvinist in its insistence on the sovereignty of God. To define the rationale behind these beliefs and the implications of them is a little more difficult.
A. People and Books
To answer in detail the question "what is [theonomic] Christian Reconstruction," it may be useful to note some of the movement's leading authors. Rousas John Rushdoony is the father of the movement. Greg L. Bahnsen is the best-known exegetical proponent of Reconstruction. Gary North appears to be the most prolific of the Reconstructionist authors (though he is certainly not unique in his prodigious production, for the movement has evidenced a number of extremely fruitful writers). He has devoted his talents to popularizing the movement (and in so doing has shown an inclination to considerable displays of verbal pyrotechnics!) and to developing the economic implications of the thesis, among other things. Other authors who are actively involved in promoting the movement include David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Three book's in particular may be noted for their influence and/or notoriety. First, there is Rushdoony's seminal Institutes of Biblical Law, which is of moment as an early reference work for the movement. Second, Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics , may be identified as the standard exegetical presentation of the Reconstructionist position on the role of the Law in the Christian life (his By This Standard serves as a more popular treatment of the same subject and No Other Standard as a detailed response to his critics). Third, we may mention David Chilton's Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators (written in response to Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger). Unlike the two previous volumes, this tome is not integral for providing the theological rationale of the movement but is mentioned because it achieved some renown on college and seminary campuses. It is a rather typical example of Reconstructionist rhetoric, and reflects the Reconstructionists' desire to formulate a right-wing alternative to more liberal evangelical social ethics.
B. The Christian Reconstructionist Agenda
Before looking at the rationale behind the distinctive tenets of Reconstructionism, it will be appropriate for us to consider a few aspects of their program. First, Reconstructionist writing champions the present-day relevance and applicability of Old Testament civil ethics and shows strong antipathy for theological systems which do not. Much of its polemic has been directed at the evangelical movement known as Dispensationalism because of its insistence on an exclusively "New Testament ethic." Reconstructionism is in large measure a response to this movement on the one hand, and to mainstream Liberal views of Old Testament ethics (in which the Old Testament is dismissed as primitive, sub-Christian, even anti-Christian, and at any rate irrelevant to contemporary Christian ethics) on the other.
Second, reconstructionists are challenging evangelicals, who have tended to be isolationists since the 1920's and 1930's, to reengage in social ethics. They are laying emphasis on the church's "salt and light" functions in society and calling the church to repentance for her neglect of these God-given duties. In this call for Christian political and social action, Reconstructionism is heralding a message which has been and is being sounded in many quarters of evangelical Christianity.
Third, Christian Reconstructionism is determined to expose what it calls "the myth of neutrality." Following the presuppositional epistemology of Cornelius Van Til, the reconstructionists argue that no one can approach a field of knowledge neutrally, objectively, or a-religiously. We must approach all study with either theistic or anti-theistic premises. There is no other alternative; for claimed neutrality or objectivity is actually negation. This view of knowledge obviously necessitates a distinctively Christian view in every field of human educational enterprise (including economics, law and politics), which for the reconstructionists means an explicitly Scripturally derived view.
Fourth, in keeping with the previous point, Reconstructionism is attempting to make a systematic and exegetical connection between the Bible and the conservative ideology of limited government and free market economics. For instance, Gary North has written volume after volume deriving principles of economics from his studies of the Pentateuch.
Fifth, Reconstructionism has sharply questioned the legitimacy of State-financed education and has been a major factor in the rise of the Christian school movement. According to North, "The government schools are established as a humanist religion aimed at stamping out Christianity." Indeed, one of Rushdoony's early books was a critique of state education entitled The Messianic Character of American Education (1963). North candidly sets forth his view of the proper Christian agenda in our current societal situation:
we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
Finally, and most controversially, the reconstructionists advocate the implementation of the Mosaic penal sanctions in modern society. Let it be said that, contrary to much criticism of Reconstruction, there is a good deal of discussion about the manner of application of the case law in a different nation-state context. That is, most reconstructionists argue that we must make allowances for the circumstances and the conditions in the modern nation-state as we apply the Mosaic casuistry. However, this very willingness to discuss flexible applications of the case law actually detracts from the popular appeal of Theonomy, which lies in its (apparently) straightforward biblicism and simple theological solution to complex socio-economic and political situations.
What would a "reconstructed" America look like, K.L. Gentry suggests the following elements of a theonomic approach to civic order:
1 It obligates government to maintain just monetary policies ... [thus prohibiting] fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and deficit spending.
2 It provides a moral basis for elective government officials. ...
3 It forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich. ...
4 It calls for the abolishing of the prison system and the establishing a system of just restitution. ...
5 A theonomic approach also forbids the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution. ...
6 It forbids industrial pollution that destroys the value of property. ...
7 It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits. ...
8 It forbids abortion rights. ... Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital crime.
III. The Origins of Reconstructionism
When one speaks of the philosophical and sociological origins of Reconstructionism, one may give the impression that a covert argument is being manufactured against the claims of the Reconstructionist movement to be biblical in its foundation. I am anxious to avoid so ambitious a project in the following surmise. The aim is more to detect influences on how leading Reconstructionists have read Scripture, and why they have focused on or emphasized certain things.
A. Philosophical: Kuyperian/Van Tillian Calvinism
Abraham Kuyper's development of Calvin's thought, and formulation of a distinctively Christian approach to education and society, has exercised formibidable influence on twentieth-century Calvinism. Post-Kuyperian Calvinism has thought in an emphatically "worldviewish" fashion, that is, there is a regular stress on thinking and living Christianly in all areas of life. This pattern of thought was decisive in the so-called Dutch school, and influencial upon Dooyeweerd and Van Til in turn. Kuyper argued for an over-arching philosophy of life resting upon God alone as the epistemological foundation. "There is not an inch in the whole of temporal life which Christ, as Lord of all men, does not say, `Mine,'" said Kuyper.
Van Til took up and refined Kuyper and Dooyeweerd's thinking. One of his customary emphases was that there is no such thing as neutrality. A person cannot be neutral about God, nor can he be neutral in his thinking or living. There are only two options: for or against, God-centered or man-centered. Van Til said: "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." Van Til meant that in the sphere of human thinking and behaving one has only two options: God's way or self's way.
The combination of Kuyper's concern for a distinctly Christian approach to the whole of life, and Van Til's insistence that one is always either theonomous or autonomous, when applied to the area of civil law and government provided a critical platform for the theonomic theory as we shall illustrate later.
B. Theological: An Evangelical Reform Movement
Theologically, Christian Reconstructionism may also be viewed as a reaction (and in the author's opinion, a well-meaning, but misguided, overreaction) to four prevalent tendencies in American Evangelicalism, and to what most traditional Christians would regard as general Western social decadence. First, Reconstructionism constitutes a challenge to the widespread peripheralization of the Old Testament in forming the Christian mind in the sphere of personal and social ethics. The peculiar view of biblical history taught in many evangelical churches reduces the Old Testament to a shadowy, pre-Christian, even sub-Christian form of the New Testament, rather than the very foundation of God's revelation. Hence, the Old Testament is valued only for end-time prophecy, moral tales, types of Christ, and if its teaching is not re-confirmed in the New Testament, it is regarded as outmoded. Reconstructionism is deliberately contradicting this pattern.
Second, Reconstructionism wishes to rebuff the general evangelical tendency to disengage from societal responsibilities. The sacred/secular dichotomy and the suspicion of any form of "social gospel" has led most fundamentalist-influenced church members to abandon any sustained or regular attempt to impact government and society. This continues to be the norm today, with the exception of so-called "family issues" like abortion, school prayer, home-schooling, "family values," and homosexuality, but even then rarely is a Christian voice heard except in protest. Theonomy wants to dump the sacred/secular dichotomy for a Kuyperian view of vocation and explore the long-ignored civic "salt-and-light" responsibilities of Christians.
Third, Reconstructionism is a reaction against the tendency to (totally) subjectivize and individualize the Christian faith . There is, of course, a vital subjective side to the Christian faith as all Christians would agree. The Puritans, for instance, would have called this "experimental religion" while Roman Catholics call it "spiritual formation" and it is an essential element to vital Christianity. If it is not there, faith is dead. But when personal piety is substituted as a part for the whole, it becomes an "ism." In other words, when Christianity is reduced to purely individual, personal spirituality (and this has been a characteristic error in much evangelicalism) an important aspect of historic Christianity is being disregarded or lost. The Reconstructionist movement wants to redress this imbalance (though it seems overly non-experiential at times) and remind the Christian of the outward demands of true Christian piety.
Fourth, Reconstructionism is a response to the anti-law spirit which pervades Christian circles where cheap-grace teaching is the norm. No one who has followed the Lordship controversy, even at a distance, can doubt that antinomianism has achieved almost confessional status in Dispensational circles. In many churches, any suggestion that Christians have an obligation to keep the Law is considered an attack on the Pauline teaching on grace. Theonomy challenges the church to return to Reformational teaching on the grace of law, the role of the law as standard in the Christian life, and the consequent relevance of Old Testament law to Christian ethics.
These four trends are readily apparent in American Evangelicalism in general and particularly in churches which have been influenced by the theology of Dispensationalism, with its emphasis on the antithesis between law and grace (in an unfortunately eccentric form), its curious version of the history of redemption, and its peculiar eschatology. Theonomy is, among other things, a rebuttal of Dispensationalism.
IV. The Fundamental Distinctives of Reconstructionism
A. Presuppositionalism
Having given some preliminary background information on Christian Reconstructionism and having suggested a rationale for its development, a considered of the distinguishing characteristics of Reconstruction. The following three distinctives reflect a depiction which is promoted by Reconstructionist authors themselves and not by the misunderstandings of their critics. First, a commitment to the Presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til is essential to the theonomic thesis. The importance of this is found in the rejection of the idea of natural law and especially in the espousal of the concept of non-neutrality. Popularly speaking, in the ethical sphere we do not have seven options, or five options, or three options. We may do one of two things. We may be "autonomous" or "theonomous." We make up our own law, or obey the law of God. Either self or God is legislating. Those are the only options.
So when a Reconstructionist asks other Christians the questions "How should a society be governed?" or "What kind of laws are best for the society?," he goes on to say to them "you only have two options. You may follow man's plan and man's law, or you can follow God's plan and law." Then the Reconstructionists inquires: "And where does one find God's will for society expressed? Why in the Bible, of course! Just read your Old Testament and you will find God's perfect law for all human societies recorded in the law of Moses."
B. Postmillennialism
Second, postmillennial eschatology plays a significant role in driving theonomic ethics. Without diverting into a lengthy discussion of the particular brand of postmillennialism prevalent in Reconstructionist circles, suffice it to say that eschatology is of first importance to theonomic authors and to the defense of the thesis from attacks at critical points. This is a major point of contention with the Reconstructionist's evangelical antagonists, the Dispensationalists. Hence, Reconstructionist presses crank out a steady stream of popular and academic treatments of postmillennial and preterist eschatology.
Among the areas in the theonomic thesis where postmillennialism plays an important role are: 1) challenging prevalent Christian eschatological pessimism (in both premillennial and amillennial circles) which robs an important motive force for Christian societal labor in the here and now; 2) addressing Christian preoccupation with the heavenly consummation of Christ's kingdom (or an earthly millennium) which diverts focus from the present responsibilities and blessings of kingdom life; and 3) explaining why the Reconstructionist agenda will not have to resort to the use of force to see its hopes for the nations realized. Often the Reconstructionist is accused of being anti-democratic and of plotting to impose his societal vision on the unwilling masses. However, because of his postmillennialism, he can explain that the nations will be willingly reconstructed as the gospel itself advances.
C. Transformational Worldview (embracing theonomic ethics)
Third, what might be called a "macro-transformational worldview" is essential to Theonomy. The terminology of "reconstruction" and "dominion," common to theonomic literature, comes from this idea. The Reconstructionists are arguing for impacting the structures of society (government, economic system, educational system, etc. [hence, macro-transformational worldview]) with the law of God. In the words of Rushdoony, "as the new chosen people of God, the Christians are commanded to do what Adam in Eden, and Israel in Canaan failed to do. One and the same covenant under differing administrations still prevails. Man is summoned to create the society that God requires" (italics mine). The Christian's calling to be a transformer of society is what Rushdoony is accentuating, here and elsewhere. Now, of course, the idea of "transformation" is not unique to Reconstructionism. It is standard in Reformed theology as a quick review of the writings of Calvin, Knox, Dabney, Henry, Schaeffer and others will reveal. Every believer has been given the charge to be salt and light in society. Reformed theology has always taken those salt and light functions seriously. Whether the Reconstructionists are disproportionate in their emphasis on societal (as opposed to personal) transformation is, of course, open to question.
This same concern for societal impact as part of every Christian's vocation is echoed in Bahnsen's writings where he stresses that this involvement and transformation must entail the supreme criterion of God's law. He writes:
The Christian's ethical responsibility to the law of his God extends beyond the simple personal observation of those stipulations. More than just obeying God's commandments personally, the Christian is expected to promote the keeping of God's law (and every detail thereof).
Elsewhere, he adds: "Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed laws as a standard by which to judge all social codes."
So far, about all that has been argued in the above quotations is that the Christian has social as well as personal obligations which are entailed in his sanctification, and that God's law provides the touchstone by which his civic involvement is to be evaluated. The eccentricity of the Reconstructionist program for transformation is found in its appeal to the Old Covenant judicial case law as binding for the New Covenant era nation-state (hence, it is a "transformational worldview embracing theonomic ethics "). For example, Bahnsen says:
We have observed that a distinctively Christian position with respect to law and politics will call for promoting of the comprehensive Gospel advocated by the Reformed Faith--a Gospel which has political implications because Christ has established God's kingdom (with its influence in every area of life) and now rules as the King of Kings over all mankind. ... Study of Scripture has shown that God's will for public justice and politics has been revealed in the permanent standards of God's law. Therefore, Christians ought to work to persuade others of their obligation to the commandments of God, including the civil magistrate of his duty to enforce the penal sanctions of God's law against criminal activity in society (emphasis mine).
Reconstructionism's particular version of transformationalism is linked to both its presuppositional and postmillennial commitments. It is easy to see how one could argue that if there is no such thing as "natural law" (in the Calvinian sense), and if there are only two ultimate sources of law (God or self), and if God intended the Old Testament case law as "a model of social justice for all cultures," and if Christ is going to return after a golden age on earth characterized by godly rule and peace, then surely the kingdom in the millennium will be ruled on the basis of God's own revealed law in the Old Testament (including case law and attendant penal sanctions), and Christians should be actively working to bring about in their own countries observance of the law which God intended for all nations and which He will establish in the millennium.
D. Highlights of the Theological Justification of theonomic ethics
These three distinctives are identified by Theonomists themselves as essential to their position. However, the last one (a transformational worldview embracing "theonomic ethics") entails at least five propositions necessary for its own justification. What are "theonomic ethics?" Theonomy simply mean's "God's law." So what is unique about the Reconstructionist approach to it? "God's law in exhaustive detail" is a battle cry for the movement. What exactly does a Theonomist mean by that and what is its significance?
These queries may be answered by recourse to Bahnsen's case for Theonomy. Key points of his argument may be briefly outlined as follows. First, the law of God (in its entirety) is binding in the New Covenant as well as the Old. Second, there is no explicit Scriptural recognition of the common distinction between the moral and civil law. Third, there are two types of law in the Mosaic code: moral and restorative. What has traditionally been called the civil law is part of the moral. This is justified by the identification of an "underlying rationale" in God's law. Fourth, the restorative (or ceremonial) has been confirmed by Christ and therefore is no longer kept by believers. The moral law remains perpetually binding, including the case laws and attendant penal sanctions (though not necessarily retaining their precise wording). Fifth, the fact that civil law is still binding is confirmed by New Testament citation of case law as authoritative for the New Covenant era. Therefore, the Christian ought to be obedient to the Old Covenant civil laws, encouraging others to obey the civil law, and working in one's own country to realize the enactment of the Old Covenant civil code (with appropriate modifications) as part of the law of the land. Hence, the appeal to "the abiding validity of God's law in exhaustive detail" means for Bahnsen that the moral law is not really kept until the Mosaic civil code (which is part of that moral law) is honored.
In order to elucidate the main points of the above-outlined justification of the theonomic theory, it will be profitable to survey and critique five more important assertions in Bahnsen's argument. After which, we will offer a concise summarization of the essential marks of a Theonomist.
1. Espousal of Twofold Division of the Law (or the Unity of the Law)
Reconstructionists identify the most significant distinction between Old Covenant laws as twofold: moral and ceremonial. Historically speaking, this means a functional denial (most commonly in the form of a reinterpretation) of the traditional Reformed threefold division of the law--moral, civil and ceremonial-- (cf., Westminster Confession of Faith 19:3-5) and, alternatively, the espousal of a twofold division--moral and ceremonial (or restorative). Theologically, it involves an attempt to identify all non-ceremonial Old Covenant law with the moral law (summarized in the ten commandments) in such a way that they constitute a unity. Hence, if one accepts this identification, and grants that the moral law remains authoritative in the New Covenant era, so also must one grant that the enduring validity all other non-ceremonial law. This is very important to the theonomic "exegetical" argument. Bahnsen says:
The most fundamental distinction to be drawn between Old Testament laws is between moral laws and ceremonial laws. ... This is not an arbitrary or ad hoc division, for it manifests an underlying rationale or principle. Moral laws reflect the absolute righteousness and judgment of God, guiding man's life into the paths of righteousness; such laws define holiness and sin, restrain evil through punishment of infractions, and drive the sinner to Christ for salvation. On the other hand, ceremonial laws--or redemptive provisions--reflect the mercy of God in saving those who have violated His moral standards....
He goes on to say elsewhere, "The ceremonial law can be seen to have sub-divisions: (1) laws directing the redemptive process therefore typifying Christ...and (2) laws which taught the redemptive community its separation from the unbelieving nations...." He continues, "The moral lawof God can likewise be seen in two subdivisions, the divisions having simply a literary difference: (1) general or summary precepts of morality... and (2) commands that specify the general precepts by way of illustrative application...."
It should be noted that this is a critical point to Bahnsen's exegetical argument for the continuing validity and binding authority of the Mosaic civil legislation in the New Covenant era. If Bahnsen's thesis is not sustained at this point his entire proposal fails, even if he were able to support every other major locus. It is also built on weak evidence. The importance, may I say, the genius, of this point is that Bahnsen attempts to link the civil ordinances to the moral law in such a way that any evidence for the continuing validity of the moral law in the New Covenant era becomes an argument in favor of the continuing validity of the civil code. Thus, standard Reformed arguments for the abiding authority of the moral law are marshalled by Reconstructionists as material to buttress their distinctive position.
However appealing Bahnsen's argument is here, it is not insurmountable. First, it may be observed, his argument is descriptive rather than exegetical. Though he chastises "latent antinomians" for "multiplying distinctions and qualifications which are not enumerated in God's word" his own categories are based not on explicit Scriptural testimony but on what he calls an "underlying rationale or principle." In other words his classification of "moral" and "ceremonial" is determined by his (however plausible) speculation on the purpose for which God gave particular laws.
Second, it should be noted that the designation "ceremonial law" is not employed in the Bible, nor is there anything like a comprehensive list of what might fall into such a category of laws. Is it as easy to distinguish civil and ceremonial law in the Torah as Bahnsen seems to suggest? Yet Bahnsen's argument assumes and proceeds on a readily identifiable set of "ceremonial laws." How does he recognize these?--by his assessment of their character, not by exegetical directive. What is the basis of the category "ceremonial law" then? It is determined descriptively. Even then, crucial questions remain. For instance, grant Bahnsen's descriptive distinction and answer the question "Is ceremonial law amoral?" For an interesting treatment of Old Testament civil law which does not avoid the complexities of categorization see Christopher J.H. Wright's Living as the People of God.
Third, though he insists that the New Testament allows for no distinction between moral and civil laws, the fact is that the New Testament does indeed make much of the distinction between the Old and New Covenant structure of the kingdom of God. Under the Old Covenant the institutional form of the kingdom of God was the nation-state of Israel. The New Covenant institutional form of the kingdom of God is the church (which is non-national and trans-national in its embodiment). This shift provides an important, simple and obvious rationale for the expiration of the judicial law. The civil law of Israel (as the application of God's eternal standards to a particular situation in the history of his kingdom) has now (in the progress of his redemptive economy) passed away with the demise of that state (in its unique role as earthly representative of the rule of God) and the advent of a superior institutional expression of God's rule.
Fourth, Bahnsen criticizes those who distinguish between moral, civil and ceremonial law on the basis that they are arguing without positive biblical warrant for a threefold distinction. However, as we have already observed, he cannot offer any positive biblical warrant for his own argument for the twofold moral/ceremonial distinction. He identifies these categories by his hypothesis on their function and purpose (in a way not dissimilar to those who identify a classification of moral, civil, and ceremonial law) yet accuses his opponents of holding a position without positive scriptural justification.
2. Hermeneutic of Assumed Continuing Validity
A fundamental hermeneutical principle, frequently repeated by Theonomists, is that if the New Testament does not explicitly abrogate a law then it is still in force. It is reminiscent of standard Reformed argumentation for the continuing validity of the moral precepts of the Mosaic code but also assumes the peculiar Reconstructionist two-fold distinction in the law. Bahnsen puts it this way: "We should presume that the Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation." In order to support this argument, he spends a great deal of time in exegesis of Matthew 5:17 arguing that the word "fulfilled" there is to be taken with the force of "confirmed." According to Bahnsen, Christ has "confirmed" the entire law of the Old Testament and hence anything not personally fulfilled by Christ on behalf of the believer is still required of the faithful in the New Covenant period. In other words, though Christ's saving work has made obsolete the ceremonial code, Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17 are taken to prove his confirmation of the believer's duty to keep the civil law (as part of the moral law). Bahnsen's exegesis is directly opposed to the dispensational formula here ("if an OT command is not repeated in the NT, it is no longer binding"), and probably derives from that conflict. Hence, we observe that this axiom is the inverse of the dispensational premise of dealing with Old Testament law. Whatever positive or negative response one has to Bahnsen's principle, it can be granted him, and his case for the binding authority of the case law still remains inconclusive-- if his argument for the twofold division of the law is not conceded to be compelling. In other words, if one grants Bahnsen his argument on Jesus' "confirmation" of the law, and his hermeneutic of continuing validity, and yet continues to hold to a threefold rather than a twofold division of the law, then all Bahnsen's argument proves is the continuing validity of the moral law. His argument cannot be sustained apart from the rectitude of his twofold division.
At this point, we may say in passing, that Bahnsen's case is often dependent upon a sort of fundamentalist, proof-texting approach to exposition (not unlike some of the dispensational exegesis to which he is responding). He finds no passage which specifically identifies a class of civil laws in the Mosaic code and so he postulates that no such thing exists. He finds no explicit New Testament abrogation of such a class of civil laws and, again, decides that the civil code must still be in effect. Meanwhile, he manages to ignore a great weight of inferential Scriptural evidence both for the existence of such a class of laws and its subsequent termination. Examples of this include: the obvious socio-governmental character of parts of the Mosaic code, the unique historical and redemptive-historical circumstances in which the civil code was given to Israel, the accommodational character of the legislation, the change in the institutional form of God's kingdom from Old Covenant to New, the demise of the nation-state of Israel, and the peculiar New Testament pattern of case law application (which we will review later).
Of course, this wooden approach to interpretation does not prevail consistently but only when he attempts a defense of the peculiar portions of his thesis. For instance, take the matter of his approach to the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances. The ceremonial law, as a class, is not explicitly abrogated in the New Testament. The passages that Reformed theologians (including Bahnsen) rely on to prove the abrogation of ceremonial law in the New Covenant era refer to particular cases in which Christ abrogated or fulfilled specific ceremonial ordinances: unclean food laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15), and tabernacle furniture and ritual typology (Hebrews 9:1-14). Bahnsen and Reformed theologians in general argue from the abrogation of a specific ceremonial ordinance to the abrogation of a class of ceremonial ordinances (assuming, all along, that such a class exists). Such an argument is legitimate and very much like the argument of Reformed theologians for the existence and subsequent termination of a class of civil laws. Bahnsen employs it when arguing for the confirmation of the ceremonial law, but decries it when it is used to argue for the abrogation of the Mosaic civil code.
3. Appeal to New Testament Citation of Mosaic Case Law
One argument which is employed to show (in contrast to the ceremonial code) that the civil laws of Israel are still binding on Christians is drawn from the New Testament's authoritative citation of Mosaic case law. Theonomists assert that the New Testament appeal to the Old Testament case law proves that Old Testament case law is normative for the civil magistrate in the Christian era. Bahnsen says:
There is abundant evidence that the New Testament authoritatively cited and applied these case-law illustrations to current situations. To use examples mentioned above, the New Testament echoes the Old Testament law in prohibiting incest (1 Cor. 5:1), homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27, 32), defrauding employees (Mark 10:19), and muzzling the ox as he treads (1Tim. 5:18).
Now, the fact that the New Testament applies case law is no surprise. The question is how it applies the case law. For instance, in one of the examples which Bahnsen cites in the quotation above (1 Timothy 5:18), Paul applies a civil law statute clearly intended for enforcing responsible treatment of domestic animals to the question of the church providing an equitable salary for a minister! This raises a very serious question. On Bahnsen's hermeneutical principles, how can the New Testament authors legitimately do that? How can they apply a case law patently intended for the state of Israel to an issue concerning the church?
One possible explanation entails recognizing that the New Testament authors had a profound understanding of the difference in the institutional form of the Old Covenant community (nation-state of Israel) and New Covenant community (church). Without going into the debate about Old and New Covenant church-state relations, at the very least, it can be said that under the older dispensation, the church was established by and closely tied to the nation-state whereas under the new dispensation, the church is trans-ethnic and trans-national. This external, structural, administrative change may find witness in the New Testament's modified application of civil case law to the ecclesiastical community.
Whatever the case may be, it is clear (even from this brief discussion) that mere appeal to the fact that the New Testament cites Old Testament case law does not provide, of itself, any positive evidence for Bahnsen's case. Indeed, the New Testament's employment of case law seems to provide prima facie evidence against the views of Theonomy. It always applies the Old Testament civic legislation to ecclesiastical issues and never even hints that Christians ought to seek a civil fulfillment for the peculiarly Mosaic case statutes.
4. Non-Arbitrary, non-Circumstantial Design of the Old Testament Case Law
Fourth, Reconstructionism postulates that Old Testament case law was not merely intended for the particular circumstances of Israel. In other words, they were not ad hoc--meant simply for a definite stage and circumstance of redemptive history. For example, Bahnsen says:
God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).
One could affirm this whole quotation, with the exception of the word "universal" (if one understands Bahnsen's usage of it) and still reject Bahnsen's thesis. His basic argument is this: because the civil law of Israel is non-arbitrary, objective, and universal, it cannot be exclusively intended for the situation of ancient Israel. Therefore the civil laws must be applied today.
Now let us grant that the civil law reflects the character of God and that the civil law of Israel was non-arbitrary. Even if we concede these points, the intimation that God did not take into consideration the particular and temporal needs and circumstances of the nation-state of Israel is mystifying. The classical Reformed view differs from Bahnsen at this point. The Theonomist says that the civil law is neither arbitrary nor circumstantial. The general Reformed consensus holds that the civil law was not arbitrary, but was circumstantial. If this latter view is correct, then there may be things peculiar to the Mosaic code which are inappropriate for the modern nation-state.
This is an area where Theonomy, in gross violation of biblical patterns and common sense, is ignoring the context of the giving of the law to the redemptive community of the Old Testament. This constitutes an approach to the nature of the civil law very different from Calvin and the rest of the Reformed tradition, which sees the civil law as God's application of his eternal standards to the particular exigencies of his people.
5. Mosaic Case Law a Model of Social Justice for All Cultures
Fifth, and following on the last point, Theonomy asserts that the Old Testament case law is a model of social justice for all cultures, including the penal code. To quote Bahnsen again: "The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing `judicial' laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals." This point [the continuing validity of Mosaic penology] is clearly important in the Reconstructionist ideology. It has also occasioned some of the most vehement reactions of non-Theonomists. Abusive ad hominem and sensationalism have reigned in most responses to this issue, hence a more restrained approach and thorough reply is still needed.
Without question, none should underestimate the value of having God's own revealed applications of his eternal character and the principles of his moral law to the civil situation in Israel. These laws may indeed give us guidance in making equitable laws and even suggesting appropriate punishments. Calvin and the Puritans acknowledged this, as has the whole of the Reformed tradition in general. However, we must not forget that the circumstances in God's redemptive purposes may have dictated both the form and even the content of the case law at certain points. This Calvin, and the Puritans following him, clearly recognized.
E. The Marks of a Christian Reconstructionist (Theonomist)
What, then, qualifies a person to be a Reconstructionist? How do you identify a one? We will summarize the preceding discussion by pointing to nine distinctive marks of a Theonomic Reconstructionist. First of all, the Theonomist opposes a dispensational/antinomian view of the law in Christian life. Second, the Theonomist endorses presuppositionalism (especially in its rejection of natural law and emphasis on non-neutrality). Third, the Theonomist is postmillennial in his eschatological platform. Fourth, the Theonomist espouses a Kuyperian transformational worldview, emphasizing the law as the Christian's tool of dominion. Fifth , the Theonomist argues that the civil law is a sub-set of the moral law. Sixth, the Theonomist insists that the Old Testament civil case law is normative for the civil magistrate and government in the New Covenant era. Seventh, the Theonomist maintains, on principle, that the state is obligated to apply the Old Testament case laws' penal sanctions. Eighth, the Theonomist asserts that it is the Christian's duty to obey and work for the enactment of the Old Testament civil law and its penal sanctions in the modern nation-state. Ninth, the Theonomist is willing to label as antinomian (or latent antinomian) fellow Christians who do not share his particular views of the present-day application of the Mosaic code, because indifference to the theonomic thesis is impossible.
Conclusion
This prelimary sketch of Reconstructionism has revealed a number of identifiable traits of and influences on the movement. For instance, 1) it is apparent that Reconstructionism is sub-category of Calvinism. One may be a Calvinist and not be a Reconstructionist, but one may not be a Reconstructionist and not be a Calvinist (consistently). Reconstructionism borrows heavily from the Calvinistic legacy not only in its high view of Scripture, but also in its views of Church-State relations, and the complementarity of law and gospel. 2) Reconstructionism is heavily indebted to Kuyperian (and/or Dooyeweerdian) thinking about common grace and antithesis. The Reconstructionists' "worldy-minded Calvinism" draws strongly on nineteenth and twentieth century Dutch Calvinist philosophical traditions, notwithstanding points of contact with older British precedents. 3) In terms of redemptive historical approach, Theonomists tend to stress continuity of redemptive history more or in a different way than have mainstream Calvinists. 4) Reconstructionism also rejects the older Reformed views of divine natural law and promotes a positivist view of law. 5) A tendency to supralapsarianism and mono-covenantal thought can also be found in Reconstructionist circles. That is, Theonomists are predisposed to "high Calvinism" in their view of the decrees but also to deny (wittingly or unwittingly, explicitly or implicitly) important aspects of classical, federal, bi-covenantal theology. There is much evidence of a reticence to speak about a covenant of works/covenant of grace framework, and even a hesitance to talk about distinctive stages in the covenant of grace. 6) Reconstructionists are inclined downplay or deny (theoretically and/or functionally) "common grace insights" in the Christian's formation of a distinctively Christian approach to his culture. Theonomists are suspicious of general evangelicalism's exaltation of general revelation over special revelation, and its the frequent capitulations to unbiblical patterns heralded as wisdom gleaned from God's revelation in nature and providence.
Note: Due to technical difficulties the footnotes have not been reproduced. For footnotes/references readers are refered to the author at the email address above.
A Selected Bibliography
G.L. Bahnsen. No Other Standard. Tyler, TX; Institute for Christian Economics, 1991.
G.L. Bahnsen. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977.
W.S. Barker and W.R. Godfrey, eds. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
M. Cromartie. No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993.
G. DeMar. The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction. Fort Worth Dominion, 1988.
G. DeMar. "You've Heard It Said." Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991.
K.L. Gentry. God's Law in the Modern World. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1993.
T.D. Gordon. "Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy." Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 23-43.
H.W. House and T. Ice. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? Portland: Multnomah, 1988.
J.B. Jordan, ed. Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of American Baptist Culture 1 (Spring, 1982).
God and Politics. "On Earth as It Is in Heaven." Produced by Bill Moyers. 60 min. Films for the Humanities and Sciences, n.d. Videocassette.
R. Nash. Great Divides. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.
G. North. Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. Tyler, TX; Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.
G. North. Theonomy: An Informed Response. Tyler, TX; Institute for Christian Economics, 1991.
G. North. Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy. Tyler, TX; Institute for Christian Economics, 1991.
R.J. Rushdoony. The Institutes of Biblical Law. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973.
The Royal Race of the Redeemed by Rev. Andrew Sandlin
A thorough understanding of the nature of God's design for man's salvation is impossible apart from a grasp of the teaching of Rom. 5:12 f.: the comparison of and contrast between the First Adam, the created man, and the Second Adam, the Creator Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. St. Paul teaches us that the First Adam and the Second Adam are federal representatives: "The Old Testament type not only corresponds to the new age reality but also stands in antithesis to it. Like Adam Jesus is the representative headman of the race; but unlike Adam, who brought death, Jesus brings forgiveness and life."[1] The offspring of the First Adam, that is, all human posterity, is plunged into sin, both implied and actual, by the imputed actions of their federal head; the offspring of the Second Adam, that is, all united to Christ by faith, receives divine righteousness, both implied and actual, by the imputed actions of their federal head. The union of both the unconverted and the regenerate to federal heads and the depiction of each head as father of the respective offspring highlight the fact that the ultimate racial issue of mankind is the issue of covenant headship -- one is united to the race of the depraved (Adam's seed), or the race of the redeemed (Christ's seed).
God's Covenant Seed
The chief theme of the Old Testament is God's election of and dealings with a particular ethnic race: the Jews, the seed of Abraham. The divine promises graciously given to Abraham applied no less to his seed than to him (Gen. 17:7 - 14). God would be a God to him and his seed, and would bestow on his seed the land of Canaan (Gen. 13:14-17; 17:8), and all the domestic amenities that land inheritance implied ( Ex. 3; 6-8; Dt. 31:1-8). From almost the beginning, however, God made it clear that the posterity of Abraham to whom the promises were given was not defined exclusively in terms of his physical seed -- the covenant promises are not merely a physical birthright (Gen. 17:18-21) [2]. God was not interested in making and maintaining his covenant with a physical seed per se, but with a physical seed faithful to his covenant (Gen. 26:4, 5; Lev. 26). For this reason, God made provision for Gentile believers to join the covenant community (Ex. 12:48). In the New Testament, the covenant, and, therefore, soteric, promises are extended to include the elect among the entire human race. The New Testament writers, mainly Jesus Christ and St. Paul, assert the suspension of God's dealings with ethnic Israel (Mt. 21:33-22: 14; Rom. 9:22-29), and the initiation of his dealings with the multiracial body of Christ (Rom. 2:28, 29; Eph. 2:11-22), the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29), the New Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). The emphasis thus shifts and expands from ethnic Israel to all the nations of the earth.
Two Principal Interpretive Errors
Two main misinterpretations of God's multiracial covenant plan plague the current Christian scene. The first repeats certain aspects the error of the Pharisees and other Jews during Jesus's earthly ministry. They recognize that the Jews as a nation and race have been demoted in God's covenant plan, but they then incorrectly conclude that with the transfer of covenant privilege to the multiracial church[3], God has selected the White-Anglo-Saxon race as the racial replacement of covenant ethnic Israel: a new physical race supersedes an old physical race. Groups espousing this grave and dangerous error often posit the inherent superiority of the Aryan and Anglo-Saxon race and inherent inferiority of the Black, Jewish, Southern and Eastern European, Indian, and Asian races. This notion turns on its head the Biblical teaching of the expansion of God's covenant and soteric purposes to all races (Ac. 15:19-29).
Equally erroneous is the radical reformers' conclusion (shared by many modern evangelicals) that God's new covenant plan cancels the Old Testament's special consideration given to the offspring of God's elect (of any race and ethnic group). This error focuses attention chiefly or exclusively on enticing proselytes into the Faith. This conclusion overlooks the promises of Ac. 2:38, 39; 1 Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:1-3 and other Scriptures, thus depriving Christian parents of the encouragement and solace of God's covenant pledges and rupturing the covenantal continuity of the Scriptures[4]. According to the most consistent expression of this misguided view, Christian parents are instructed to treat their offspring no differently than they would treat pagans -- for in effect that is what the children are considered to be.
The New Racial Community
By contrast, the authentically Christian, and more specifically Reformed, conception of God's racial and familial dealings posits both the expansion of God's redemptive and covenant purposes to include a large number from all races, on an equal footing with the elect from ethnic Israel (Is. 19:24, 25), as well as the promises that the physical seed of the elect constitute a prime object of God's salvific designs.
The Bible stresses covenantal inclusion as based not on birth (Jn. 1:12, 13), but on re-birth (Jn. 3:5), without in any way negating the glorious promises to the elect, that their physical seed stands in a special relation to God, and that they may presume that their seed is elect (Gen. 17:7), and therefore train that seed in the gospel and the Faith (1 Tim. 3:15).
God has graciously called to himself not only a covenant seed, but a new race, a race not of "ethnicity," but of covenantal redemption and obedience. This race shares in the divine royalty, "Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). As the new Israel, it is race of princes with God (Gen. 32:28). It is a race intimately, even physically (Jn. 6:53-58), united to the humanity of its Elder Brother (Heb. 2:9-14), a race engendered not by blood, but by the supernatural efficacy of the redemptive work of Christ, the second Adam ( Jn. 1; 12, 13; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19).
The Task of the New Race in the Earth
This race shares in the reign of its royal representative, Christ (Eph. 1:20-23; Rev. 2:26, 27), and is itself his representative in the earth, calling all sinful men to repent and submit to the King, the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Naturally, the race of the second Adam intently trains its own physical seed in the Faith, eschewing all forms of education (public or private) which threaten to undermine the claims of the King of the earth, the Lord Jesus Christ, and historic Christianity (Pr. 22:6).
This royal race of the redeemed comprehends the church, the visible covenant community (Eph. 4:4-16), purchased with Christ's blood (Ac. 20:28), congregating formally (Heb. 10:25) on the first day of the week (Ac. 20:7), to worship the sovereign, Triune God (Ac. 2:46, 47); hear the clear exposition of the Scriptures (Ac. 2:42; 2 Tim. 4:2); partake of communion, the new covenant meal (Lk. 22:19, 20); and prepare to advance Christ's kingdom in the earth (Ac. 4:23- 31). Thereby the church is energized to press the claims of Christ in every aspect of life, to subdue the earth for the glory of God (Gen. 1:27, 28; Mt. 28:19, 20).
The royal race of the redeemed, elected from all nations, of all colors and languages and dialects (Rev. 5:9), operates redemptively, pressing the claims of the Christian Faith in all spheres of life and existence. The royal race sees the world as the jurisdiction of the sovereign King ( Ps. 47; 1 Cor. 10:26, 28), and therefore their jurisdiction (Ps. 8:4-6; Heb. 2:6-8), as Christ's vicegerents, to steward the earth by God's law-word as his righteous domain.
This is indeed a racial aristocracy, constituting even racial superiority, but it has nothing to do with earthly nation, color, or language. It is the aristocracy of the righteous, God's mighty dominion army in the earth (Ps. 44:1-8; Eph. 6:10 - 20), pressing forward in love for God and his cause, with the infallible word as its guide.
The royal race of the redeemed is God's posterity, and it cannot fail (Dan. 7:18).
1) E. Earle Ellis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old," in ed., I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Grand Rapids, 1977), 211.
2) Daniel Fuller, Gospel and Law (Grand Rapids, 1980), 123-130.
3) Charles Provan, The Church Is Israel Now: The Transfer of Covenant Privilege (Vallecito, CA, 1987).
4) Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1939, 1941), 262-301.
Topics:
Christian Reconstruction
A recently articulated philosophy which argues that it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ. It proclaims "the crown rights of King Jesus." The means by which this task might be accomplished--a few CR's are not convinced that it can be--is biblical law. This is the "tool of dominion." We have been assigned a dominion covenant--a God-given assignment to men to conquer in His name (Gen 1:23; 9:1-7). The founders of the movement have combined four basic Christian beliefs into one overarching system: 1) biblical law, 2) optimistic eschatology, 3) predestination (providence), and 4) presuppositional apologetics (philosophical defense of the faith).
Gary North, Backward Christian Soldiers? An Action Manual For Christian Reconstruction (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), Glossary.
Goal
The goal is the developed Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem, a world order under God's law.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 357.
Gospel
1. "God's covenant with Adam required him to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it (Gen. 1:26 ff) under God according to God's law-word."
2. "The restoration of that covenant relationship was the work of Christ, His grace to His elect people."
3. "The fulfillment of that covenant is their great commission: to subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His law-word."
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 14.
The Purpose of the New Adam
The purpose of the new Adam is to undo the work of the fall, restore man as covenant keeper, make of man again a faithful citizen of the Kingdom of God, and enable man again to fulfil his calling to subdue the earth under God and to restore all things to God's law and dominion. Those who submit to this calling and dominion inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5).
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 728.
The Primal Urge
Dominion is God's principle for man over nature (Gen. 1:28), and for the male in the person of the husband and father in the family (I Cor. 11:1-15). Dominion as the male's nature and prerogative is to be found throughout the animal world as a part of God's creation ordinance. In animals, as Ardrey has pointed out, there is a primacy of dominion over sexual and other drives. "The time will come when the male will lose all interest in sex; but he will still fight for his status." In fact, "dominance in social animals is a universal instinct independent of sex." This male instinct for dominion reveals itself in animals in three ways: first, in territoriality, i.e., a property instinct and drive, and second, in status, a drive to establish dominion in terms of rank in a rigidly hierarchical order, and third, survival, and order as a means of survival. This is true of animals in natural setting; zoo animals, being in a welfare society, are more absorbed with sex. In the male, dominion leads to increased sexual potency and longevity. Moreover, "It is a curious characteristic of the instincts of order that most are masculine." The female's sexual and maternal instincts are personal and thus in a sense anarchistic.
These characteristics are true of human life also.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 201.
Citing Robert Ardrey, African Genesis (NY: Atheneum, 1961).
Crushed by His Power
If men are not regenerated by Christ, and if they will not submit to His calling, to the cultural mandate, they will be crushed by His power.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 730.
The Cultural Mandate
The cultural mandate is thus the obligation of covenant man to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it under God (Gen. 1:26-28). The law is the program for that purpose and provides the God-ordained means of improving and developing plants, animals, men, and institutions in terms of their duty to fulfil God's purpose. In every age, men have a duty to obey God and to train and improve themselves, i.e., to sanctify themselves, in terms of God's law. All enemies of Christ in this fallen world must be conquered. St. Paul, summoning believers to their calling, declared,
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled (II Cor. 10:4-6).
The Berkeley Version renders verse 6 thus: "We are prepared also to administer justice upon all disobedience, when your obedience is fully shown." Moffatt brings out the force of this verse even more clearly: "I am prepared to court-martial anyone who remains insubordinate, once your submission is complete." Moffatt renders verse 5, "I demolish theories and any rampart thrown up to resist the knowledge of God, I take every project prisoner to make it obey Christ."
St. Paul was talking about the cultural mandate. Before the fall, the task was less complicated. Now man needs regeneration. Thus, the first step in the mandate is to bring men the word of God and for God to regenerate them. The second step is to demolish every kind of rampart or opposition to the dominion of God in Christ. The world and men must be brought into captivity to Christ, under the dominion of the Kingdom of God and the law of that kingdom. Third, this requires that, like Paul, we court-martial or "administer justice upon all disobedience" in every area of life where we encounter it. To deny the cultural mandate is to deny Christ and to surrender the world to the devil.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 724-725.
Man's Destiny
Man can be understood only in terms of God and His sovereign purpose in man's creation. According to Genesis 1:26-28, man was created to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it, and the command to "be fruitful, and multiply" was an aspect of the call to exercise dominion over the earth. Man therefore is to be understood in terms of God's kingdom and man's calling therein to manifest God's law-order in a developed and subdued earth.
Man is thus primarily and essentially a religious creature who is truly understood only by reference to his Creator and his ordained destiny under God. Man's destiny, to bring all things under the dominion of God's law-word, confronted man from the beginning of his creation.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 341-342.
The Image of God
The earth thus was created to be God's kingdom, and man was created in God's image to be God's vicegerent over that realm under God. The image of God involves knowledge (Col. 3:10), righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24), and dominion over the earth and its creatures (Gen. 1:28).
Man was created in the image of God and commanded to subdue the earth and to have dominion over it (Gen. 1:26-27). Not only is it man's calling to exercise dominion, but it is also his nature to do so. Since God is the absolute and sovereign Lord and Creator, whose dominion is total and whose power is without limits, man, created in His image, shares in this communicable attribute of God. Man was created to exercise dominion under God and as God's appointed vicegerent over the earth. Dominion is thus a basic urge of man's nature.
The salvation of man includes his restoration into the image of God and the calling implicit in that image, to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 343, 448, 449.
Managing the World
St. Paul, in reminding the Corinthian Christians of their destiny, said, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (I Cor.6:2). Moffatt renders this, "Do you not know that the saints are to manage the world?," a meaning we do not need to remind ourselves of. Church government is a prelude to world government, not by the church but by "the saints." In trying to establish the necessary church government towards this end, Paul's constant appeal was, not to the form of church government or to the members, but to the law of God and the growth of the saints in terms of it (I Cor. 6:15-9:27). Judging, governing, or managing of the world is in terms of God's law.
Because the saints were called to manage or govern the world, very quickly it became their purpose to move into positions of authority and power.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 773, 742.
Perverting the Gospel
The blessed meek are those who submit to God's dominion, have therefore dominion over themselves, and are capable of exercising dominion over the earth. They therefore inherit the earth.
This point is of very great importance. Apart from it, the gospel is perverted. Man has a God-given urge to dominion, to power. The purpose of regeneration is to re-establish man in his creation mandate, to exercise dominion and to subdue the earth. The purpose of the law is to give man the God-appointed way to dominion. The purpose of the call to obedience is to exercise dominion.
What happens when a caricature of Jesus is presented, when obedience is constantly demanded without the God-ordained goal of obedience being mentioned, and when man is continually summoned to prepare himself in the Lord, but for no purpose? The ministry of the church then becomes trifling, and the life of the believer, frustrating.
But the urge to dominion does not disappear simply because the church does not speak of it. Instead, it reappears as an ugly and sinful struggle for power in the church; rightful dominion being neglected or denied, sinful dominion begins then to emerge. The life of the church becomes then an ugly struggle over meaningless trifles in which the sole purpose is sinful power and dominion. All to often this sinful urge to dominion is masked with hypocritical meekness.
It is necessary therefore to recognize that the urge to dominion is God-given and is basic to the nature of man. An aspect of this dominion is property.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 450.
Private Property
It is very necessary therefore to recognize that the urge to dominion is God-given and is basic to the nature of man. An aspect of this dominion is property.
It is the custom among ecclesiastical socialists to deny that there is Biblical warrant for private property. Their ground for this is the often repeated Biblical declaration, "The earth is the LORD'S" (Ex. 9:29, etc.). They choose to neglect the total witness of Scripture to private property. The so-called communism of Acts 2:41-47, also cited by ecclesiastical socialists, was simply a voluntary sharing on the part of some (Acts 5). It was limited to Jerusalem. Because the believers took literally the words of Christ concerning the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-28), they liquidated their properties there. The wealthier members placed some or all of these funds at the church's disposal, so that a witness could be made to their friends and relatives before Jerusalem fell. Very early, persecution drove all but a nucleus out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1).
The earth is indeed the Lord's, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to give dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord's; the present and historical title to property is man's. The ownership of property does not leave this world when it is denied to man; it is simply transferred to the state. If the contention of the liberals that the earth is the Lord's, not man's, is to be applied as they require it, then it must be applied equally to the state; the state must be denied all right to own or control property.
The Scripture, however, places property in the hands of the family, not the state. It gives property to man as an aspect of his dominion, as a part of his godly subduing of the earth.
If the doctrine of dominion in and under God is weakened, then all the law is weakened also.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 450-451.
Theonomy
The New Testament teaches us that--unless exceptions are revealed elsewhere--every Old Testament commandment is binding, even as the standard of justice for all magistrates (Rom. 13:1-4), including every recompense stipulated for civil offenses in the law of Moses (Heb 2:2). From the New Testament alone we learn that we must take as our operating presumption that any Old Testament penal requirement is binding today on all civil magistrates. The presumption can surely be modified by definite, revealed teaching in the Scripture, but in the absence of such qualifications or changes, any Old Testament penal sanction we have in mind would be morally obligatory for civil rulers.
Greg Bahnsen, No Other Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), p. 68.
The principle of interpretation which is supposed to govern Christian orthodoxy is that Christ came to establish, confirm, and declare the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17-18). Only if we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law.
The proper exegetical principle is this: Mosaic law is still to be inforced, by the church or the State or both, unless there is a specific injunction to the contrary in the New Testament.
Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1986), pp. 242, 255.
One of the most important and most misunderstood of all Biblical declarations concerning the law is our Lord's declaration in the Sermon on the Mount:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17,18).
Two different words are used for the idea of fulfillment. The word translated as "fulfil" in verse 17 is plerosai, related pleroma; it means to make full, to the top, to fill, diffuse, to cause to abound, to pervade. Christians are said to be plervusthai, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:10; Eph. 3:19). Christ "fills" the universe with His power and activity (Eph. 4:10, pleroun). The word means to fill and to keep full, i.e., to put into force as a continuous thing. Thus, our Lord declared that He had come to put the law into force and to keep it in force. . .
Christ as the Messiah or King, because He has come, declared afresh the validity of the law and His purpose to put it into force.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 698.
What Is Christian Reconstructionism? By Paul Thibodeau
From Christian Reconstruction - God's Glorious Millennium?
http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cr.htm
I remember sitting down to read The Reduction of Christianity (DeMar & Leithart) in order to finally decide what Christian Reconstructionism was, and whether or not I agreed/disagreed with some/all of what the movement teaches. I was very optimistic about this, since I had heard that this was a clear introduction. But as I kept reading (and reading) I only became more and more confused about what Christian Reconstruction was. I was halfway through the book, and I still had no idea what it was. So I back-tracked to Let's Define Our Terms, read it over a couple more times, and finally centered on:
In particular, reconstructionists believe in the sovereignty of God as it relates to personal salvation and the created order, hold to the old Puritan belief in the continuing significance of the Old Testament case laws and a victorious view of the future progress of the kingdom of God, and advocate the presuppositional apologetic methodology and philosophy of the late Cornelius Van Til (who was not a "reconstructionist"). (pp. 31-32)
I couldn't get it. I was reading what Christian Reconstructionists believed, but I still had no idea what they believed. Except for the presuppositional philosophy (which I was unfamiliar with), I thought every Christian held these views. Depending on how these were understood, every Christian could affirm them. There was still nothing distinctive. The question was, how did Christian Reconstructionists understand these statements? What was distinctive about the Christian Reconstructionist view? What was different about how Christian Reconstructionists understood these statements, and how I did?
Eventually I realized I was never going to understand what Christian Reconstructionists believed by reading this book. The bible was simply being reconstructed according to the Reconstructionist worldview. Still, one would think that all this could have been found out much sooner. It is more difficult than one might imagine for the following two reasons: The first is the systematic misrepresentation of what Christians believe, and the second is the failure of Reconstructionists to frankly admit (and in some cases, understand) their own position.
In reading the Reduction of Christianity, I found the misrepresentations of classical Christianity so comprehensive, that most of the time I simply didn't know what the authors were talking about. For example, the continuous accusation that non-Reconstructionists don't put the bible into practice in every area of life. Christians are accused of only practicing a 'heart' religion, while Reconstructionists apply the bible to every area of their lives. Of course, this is patently false. Christians apply the bible to every area of life, but they understand this to mean something different from what Reconstructionists do. A similar distortion is as the title of the book suggests that Christians have reduced the gospel, to some kind of interiority, or self-centered personal piety, whereas Reconstructionists preach a 'full' gospel. Again, simply factually dishonest and false. Most Christians simply believe the biblical, Reformed position that good government is a common grace, and that Christians have no mandate to take dominion of the world, and therefore do not take a Christian Reconstructionist approach to social problems. But Christians always have and always will make immense positive contributions to political and social problems.
The second problem is the widespread failure of Reconstructionists to frankly admit their position. For example, asked to define Christian Reconstructionism on the television show Sound Off (January 4, 1991), Gary DeMar states:
The definition of Christian Reconstruction is simply this: that the Bible applies to every facet of life.
What an awful, deliberate ambiguity! If this is all they are teaching, then isn't every Christian already a Reconstructionist? Amazingly, some Christian Reconstructionists actually argue this! So again, there is a complete failure to identify what is distinctive about Christian Reconstruction. And the reason for this is clear. When most Christians understand what the key doctrines of Christian Reconstructionism are, they reject it. Why? Because it is completely unscriptural.
Because of the failure of Christian Reconstructionists to frankly admit their own position, there have been a truly amazing number of definitions and explanations of what Christian Reconstruction is. One of the saddest, was Robert M. Bowman Jr.'s article on behalf of the Christian Research Institute, that has and will decide the issue for the many Christians who rely on this journal to receive accurate information on new religious movements. There was a total failure on the part of Mr. Bowman to either understand or critique the basic dogmas of Christian Reconstruction. Although he finds Christian Reconstructionism to be orthodox, he warns of some potential dangers, especially: "More serious is the intermingling of reconstructionists with proponents of the "dominion theology" which is now sweeping the charismatic and Pentecostal churches." Obviously, he didn't do his homework. Dominion Theology is absolutely integral to Christian Reconstructionism. Christian Reconstructionists are Dominionists. There is no possibility of Christian Reconstruction being influenced by Dominion Theology, it is Dominion Theology. (In all fairness to Mr. Bowman, he did later write a second article challenging the unbiblical nature of the dominion mandate, but without reassessing his original conclusions).
This leads us to the second great error in characterizing Christian Reconstruction: confusing the movement's self-categorizations for the fundamental tenets that define Christian Reconstructionism. These 'distinctives' have been popularized as: theonomy, or a belief in the continuing validity of the Old Testament law (the two are actually completely distinct); postmillennialism; presuppositionalism; and Calvinism. This tendency is common even among scholars interacting with the movement. J. Ligon
Duncan, III, in his paper: Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, writes: "Opponents of Reconstruction have generally failed to identify what is truly distinctive about its position, preferring (uncharitably) to caricature it rather than define it." The high calling of his own paper then, is: "First, we will explain specifically what Christian Reconstruction is." The paper does indeed give a good flavor of what Christian Reconstructionism is (echoing many of the movement's catchphrases), but is plagued by a terrible confusion between Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. Reconstruction is defined within the movement's ambiguous self-definitions. As is typically the case, there is no discussion of the absolutely integral component of Dominion Theology. Instead, there is a section entitled 'Transformational Worldview'. While a 'transformational worldview' is of course an aspect of Dominion Theology, the concept of dominion in Christian Reconstruction also goes well beyond this. Section D, Highlights of the Theological Justification of Theonomic Ethics, contains a balanced criticism of Theonomy.
It is truly amazing how many critics of Christian Reconstruction ignore the writings (or at least demonstrate no acquaintance with them) of its founding father, Dr. Rousas Rushdoony. This, to me, is what enables there to be so much confusion about what Christian Reconstruction is, even among people who think they are Christian Reconstructionists! Many people who believe they are Christian Reconstructionists are actually much closer to Theonomy, but are genuinely confused about Christian
Reconstructionism because of the deliberate obscurities and religio-political jockeying of the movement's leaders. Reading Dr. Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law is a good way to get behind all this, since here the ideas are still formulated simply and directly, without the later makeovers and terrible distortions essential to the popularization of the movement. The foundational tenets of Christian Reconstruction are the following:
The Foundational Doctrines of Christian Reconstructionism
1. "God's covenant with Adam required him to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it (Gen. 1:26 ff) under God according to God's law-word."
2. "The restoration of that covenant relationship was the work of Christ, His grace to His elect people."
3. "The fulfillment of that covenant is their great commission: to subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His law-word." [1]
As soon as a person clearly comprehends these three doctrines, all the why's and wherefore's of Christian Reconstruction's teachings become transparent, from the rise of Dr. Bahnsen's 'Theonomy' thesis to the denial of the imminent return of Jesus.
The following elaborations by Dr. Rushdoony should perfectly clarify the Christian Reconstructionist position (all emphases in original):
God called Adam to exercise dominion in terms of God's revelation, God's law (Gen. 1:26 ff.; 2:15-17). This same calling, after the fall, was required of the godly line, and in Noah it was formally renewed (Gen. 9:1-17). It was again renewed with Abraham, with Jacob, with Israel in the person of Moses, with Joshua, David, Solomon (whose Proverbs echo the law), with Hezekiah and Josiah, and finally with Jesus Christ. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the renewal of the covenant: "this is my blood of the new testament" (or covenant), so that the sacrament itself re-establishes the law, this time with a new elect group (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; I Cor 11:25). The people of the law are now the people of Christ, the believers redeemed by His atoning blood and called by His sovereign election. [Quotes Meredith Kline] The purpose of God in requiring Adam to exercise dominion over the earth remains His continuing covenant word: man, created in God's image and commanded to subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it in God's name, is recalled to this task and privilege by his redemption and regeneration.
The law is therefore the law for Christian man and Christian society. Nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have. [2]
Finally:
God, in creating man, ordered him to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28). Man, in attempting to establish separate dominion and autonomous jurisdiction over the earth (Gen. 3:5), fell into sin and death. God, in order to re-establish the Kingdom of God, called Abraham, and then Israel, to be His people, to subdue the earth, and to exercise dominion under God. The law, as given through Moses, established the laws of godly society, of true development for man under God, and the prophets repeatedly called Israel to this purpose.
The purpose of Christ's coming was in terms of this same creation mandate. Christ as the new Adam (I Cor. 15:45) kept the law perfectly. As the sin-bearer of the elect, Christ died to make atonement for their sins, to restore them to their position of righteousness under God. The redeemed are recalled to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfill "the righteousness of the law" (Rom 8:4). The law remains central to God's purpose. Man has been re-established into God's original purpose and calling. Man's justification is by the grace of God in Jesus Christ; man's sanctification is by means of the law of God.
As the new chosen people of God, the Christians are commanded to do that which Adam in Eden, and Israel in Canaan, failed to do. One and the same covenant, under differing administrations, still prevails. Man is summoned to create the society God requires. [3]
1. R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 14.
2. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
3. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
Why Not Christian Reconstruction?
Paul Thibodeau
The Christian Reconstruction movement is based upon a profound rejection of the heart of biblical faith. It rejects the heart of biblical faith because it rejects a 'Son-word' for a 'law-word', a 'Son-order' for a 'law-order'. It preaches a new testament about God diametrically opposed to the New Testament about God. This rejection is then reconstructed into the one and only true religion of God.
This error is super-compounded by the elevation of carnal corruption into the fruit of the Spirit of Christ. Every kind of unspiritual impulse is elevated into Christ-like virtue--greed, lust of the world, the will-to-power, fear, insecurity, rage, hatred, malice, bigotry, frustration, vindictiveness, revenge-- washed, sanctified, and glorified through a self-serving and self-justifying 'law of God'. Now we can rule the world. In fact, God commands it. Now we can retaliate: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. God commands it. Now we can amass wealth and property. God commands it. Now we can hate our enemies (God's enemies). God commands it. Now we can blot out our enemies (God's enemies). God commands it. Since Jesus is rejected as the fulfillment and exemplar of the true meaning of the law, 'the law of God' becomes a simple vehicle for self-justification and self-righteousness. Lacking the heart, essence, life, substance, and content of the Christian faith, the 'law of God' becomes a lawless hideout for sin.
In this new Christless Christianity, every kind of self-justifying corruption is sanctified by the 'law of God'. How then, can this be 'God's law'? How can a 'law-order' that fundamentally opposes the New Testament about Jesus be 'God's law'?
The Gospel of Reconstruction
Paul Thibodeau
To understand Dr. Rushdoony's gospel, one must realize how Dr. Rushdoony understands the New Covenant.
