Some Comments on Theonomy

For some helpful and entertaining commentary I recommend the essay available here:

http://theonomists.blogspot.com/

While few Theonomists wish to still lay claim to the name, the general concepts are alive and well.

A few individuals and factions had broken off during the 1990's but with the death of Rushdoony in 2001 the official movement began to quickly collapse.

Officially Theonomy represented a narrow view with the Presbyterian and Reformed world. They had a particular take on the Westminster Confession's reading of the law.

While many chaffed at their literalistic insistence of the contemporary application of Old Testament case/civil laws and their open proclamation that they wished to make the Mosaic Law the new Constitution, nevertheless their views weren't really as extreme as some made them out to be.

That doesn't mean they're correct. But in general terms their theology was not an aberration.

Historically they have a case. The American Church took a different turn after the American Revolution and the new nation's official position of Disestablishment. It wasn't a problem for these Sacralists because until the early 20^th century there was a Protestant Social Consensus.

Since that has been lost there has been a concentrated effort to recover the social narrative through political power. Theonomy sought to provide a reinvigorated and more finely tuned theological impetus for this project.

Some scoff when you refer to them as Theonomists and to rebut the assertion they focus on the minutiae of the Confessional questions. Fine, in some cases the term may indeed be less than applicable.

The real issue in broad terms is Sacralism itself. This concept born in its Christian form during the reign of Constantine helped to birth the Medieval Church.

The Reformation shattered the Pan-European Social Consensus and in the subsequent centuries Europe sought to re-work and develop the various fields of political and epistemic thought. Rome couldn't be looked to anymore and the Bible as a blueprint for society proved problematic because no one could agree on what it said.

Just as the Renaissance created the conditions which led to Reformation, the Reformation unwittingly paved the way for The Enlightenment.

The advance of Secularism in the 19^th century drove Protestants to do just what Theonomy was doing in 20^th century America. They had to go back and revisit fundamentals. In European Reformed Theology this led to the advent of Dominionism which itself played no small part in influencing Theonomy and the Christian Right.

In the end Theonomy was just a more theologically robust and militant expression of the Christian Right. The mainstream Christian Right represented by Falwell, Robertson and others took the basic ideas and made them more palatable.

The key figures for understanding the Christian Right of the 1980's are Rushdoony and Schaeffer. The former wielded influence but was not well known outside of his circles. Schaeffer reached a much wider audience and influenced mainstream Evangelicalism.

Figures like Charles Colson and James Dobson took Schaeffer's ideas and modified them. Were he alive he would probably not be pleased with the direction these men have taken things.

The bottom line is that Dominionism which itself is a broad expression of these same recurring theological frameworks has become the orthodox position. Some people would say it has been for ages.

I'll grant that but will continue to insist it did not exist until the Constantinian Shift and there have always been dissenters even within the Roman fold.

In some ways Protestantism with its forward looking dynamism has always been more or less in line with the Transformational vision. One must look elsewhere to find those who have been truly faithful to the comprehensive message of Scripture and its teachings regarding the Spirit-wrought and accessed Redemptive Kingdom.