Evaluation

It is very difficult to evaluate a movement which is constantly in flux, both ideologically and organizationally. There is a great deal of intellectual ferment within the theonomist camp and books and articles are being published at a rapid rate. Ideas are generated constantly and are being sent out like trial balloons. Each new work is a refinement on the last. To criticize an earlier work by a theonomic author is to run the risk of misrepresenting his present position.

These factors have helped to contribute to the reluctance on the part of many leaders and scholars within the Reformed community to closely examine or contend with the issue of theonomy. Certainly, some have been inhibited by their own traditionalism. Theonomy is outside of the consensus of Reformed thinking today, and therefore, few are inclined to seriously assess such a radical departure from the norm.

Undoubtedly, a primary fear of potential critics is that they will evoke a torrent of criticism. Many theonomists are, if anything, prolific letter writers, quick to jump to their own defense or that of their leaders if they feel that they have been in any way maligned. Practically any one who has engaged in public treatment of the movement has been inundated by mail. Coupled with this, from time to time, have been threats of civil and ecclesiastical law suits.

     

Positive Aspects

Theonomy has much to commend it. It has challenged the Reformed community to take the Old Testament Mosaic law seriously. All too often, we have glibly said, “All scripture . . . is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16), without reading the books of the Law for practical insights into righteous living for today.

Theonomy seeks to propogate a Reformed world-and-life view. It recognizes that the Lordship of Jesus Christ must be proclaimed over every area of life—including politics, economics, and education. Joe Morecraft, theonomic pastor of the Chalcedon church in Atlanta, was the official, but ultimately unsuccessful, Republican candidate for a seat in the U.S. Congress in 1986.

Theonomy has also correctly identified many of the social ills of modern society. It realizes that they are deeply ingrained in our secular, humanistic culture (and within our own selves) and that an equally radical remedy must be administered. Many theonomists have put their time and money into actively supporting Christian education, opposing abortion, and challenging government intrusion into church affairs.

Finally, many theonomists have challenged the Reformed churches to reevaluate their liturgical traditions. Should we partake of the Lord’s Supper in our worship services more often? The issue of paedocommunion forces us to re-examine whether our covenant children should be encouraged to make a profession of faith at an earlier age. Blessings can come through these challenges.

Negative Aspects

Although there is a great deal which is attractive about theonomy to those who wish to be thoroughly Reformed, both in their theological and cultural outlooks, there are many attendant dangers. Foremost is the danger of drawing a straight line of continuity of application between Old Testament laws and New Testament situations. The theonomic emphasis on the “abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail” is liable to abuse by adherents who are less attuned to both the continuity and discontinuity between the two covenants.

Extracting general principles from the detailed Mosaic case laws is tricky business. Determining which level of generality is applicable to our modern culture demands adept hermeneutical skills. Many people have jumped on the theonomy bandwagon, believing that it offers simple solutions for societal problems. Closer scrutiny reveals that there is no biblical quick fix.

On a practical level, the greatest danger of theonomy is the censorious mind-set which often accompanies it. It is difficult to determine whether the movement produces adherents who are highly critical of others or just attracts them. Whatever the case, time and again, people perceived as opponents of theonomy have been denounced with the most uncomplimentary labels attached to them. Christian brothers should not be treated so poorly.

Sometimes the opponents of theonomy have been at fault by overgeneralizing. The inflammatory rhetoric of certain theonomists has been attributed to the whole lot of them. A better approach is one that recognizes the diversity within the movement and assesses people on an individual basis. An irenic or bridge-building approach may go a long way in modifying some theonomic extremism. Vern Poythress, a professor at Westminster Seminary, presents a good model to follow in his forthcoming book, tentatively entitled, Understanding the Law of Moses.

Reformed Tradition

We must be on guard against mere traditionalism in our practice. The Word of God, not the word of man, is our ultimate criterion. Theonomy must be examined in the light of Scripture. Several theological critiques of theonomy have been written, but none are readily accessible at the present. Another forthcoming book, tentatively entitled, Tlzeonomy: A Reformed Critique of the Movement, will hopefully help to fill that vacuum. Edited by William Barker and ordained CRC minister, Robert Godfrey, it will contain contributions from Westminster faculty members from both the Philadelphia and California campuses.

Tradition can be instructive while we anticipate these publications. Historically, Reformed scholars have operated with a tripartite division of the law in mind, dividing it into its moral, civil or judicial, and ceremonial aspects. Only the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, has been considered binding on the New Testament believer. Theonomy, while recognizing that the ceremonial law has been fulfilled in Christ, contends that the division between the moral law and the explanatory judicial case laws is unbiblical. Theonomy presumes that the judicial laws are binding unless explicity abrogated in the New Testament.

Calvin certainly operated with the three-fold division in mind. About the judicial laws, Calvin wrote, “The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated, and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd . . . The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and then be everywhere enforced” (Institutes, IV. xx. 16).

Elsewhere he remarked, “There are some who deny that a commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are . . . for me it is enough to demonstrate that they are stupid and false” (IV. xx. 14).

Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, stated that, “The judicial laws have been so abrogated by the coming of Christ, that they no longer bind any to obedience, and they have not the appearance and force of laws in respect to the present time” (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 492).

The Westminster divines wrote in their Confession of Faith that, “To them also, as a body politick, 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” (XIX. 4).

Kuyper wrote in a series of articles in The Standard in May-June, 1874, that when “our fathers called upon the state to suppress idolatry (Belgic Confession, Art. 36), they made a mistake to be protested. Government cannot enter the spiritual contest between truth and error.” Later he remarked that “the carrying on of the theocratic idea in the history of the Western Church has been a great error. The situation in which the theocratic laws were given no longer exists.”

Van Til, whose presuppositional apologetics most theonomists claim as their own, had this to say in a letter written on May 11, 1972 to Gregg Singer which is kept in the Westminster Seminary archives: “I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly ifI am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in principles which I hold.”

Conclusion

This brief survey of the origins and recent developments of the theonomy movement, along with this even more inadequate evaluation, should serve to whet the appetite of the curious reader. Theonomic literature can be ordered at many Christian bookstores and trial subscriptions to many of their newsletters are free. Some promising critiques of theonomy are forthcoming. Above all, search the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11).

David K. Watson has a BA from Wheaton College, an MAGS from Calvin College (where he made a special study of this movement) and an MAR from Westminster Theological Seminary. His address is 3 Manca Rd., Havertown, PA 18083.