On Theonomy

In the course of my theological readings, I have come across a movement that describes itself as a fringe on the fringe of Calvinism, but though it springs from somewhat different denominational origins than my own personal religious tradition, it springs from nearly identical hermeneutical (and presuppositional) assumptions about how to interpret scripture, even if the interpretations themselves are sometimes different. This relatively recent theological phenomenon is called Theonomy, coming from the Greek words for "God's law," and this group of people, mostly from a Protestant Reconstructionist background (more on that in a bit), view God's law as the sole source of human ethics. This particular viewpoint also views the biblical laws (especially those found in the Penteteuch) as remaining valid in Christianity, a view I hold most strongly and that springs from my own personal religious heritage. It almost goes without saying that this view also holds the scriptures to be inerrant and to be the eternal and unchanging standard for how individuals, families, churches, and societies to behave.

Many of the people who are called (or who call themselves) Theonomists spring from a Calvinist and postmillennialist tradition, with the belief that regeneration of society can spring from a conversion of people to biblical Christianity and the adoption of a biblical worldview that leads to actions by believers in line with biblical principles. Many theonomists, particularly those whose believes are in accordance with Dominion Theology, view the millennium as something to be brought about by an ever-more redeemed Christianity whose biblical worldview ever increasingly influences the world around us, thus bringing corrupt and fallen human institutions further and further in line with God's laws, thus eventually bringing the millennium to this earth through the action of the Holy Spirit in believers.

I do not come from that particular tradition, nor am I particularly optimistic about the ability of human society to be redeemed apart from the direct imposition of biblical law by Jesus Christ upon his return to earth. As someone who believes the law to be an enduring covenant between God and believers for all time and also believes the law to represent the way in which God has ordained for society to be run, though, I would have to consider myself a Theonomist in some fashion. Interestingly enough, I find myself in recent years to have found quite a few close friends of mine within the Church of God tradition who themselves have been (almost without knowing it, perhaps) engaging in serious research and Bible study on exactly these lines, and I have been the fond reader (and occasional implementer) of this research. What all of these lines of thinking, many proceeding from independent grounds, have in common is their start from the premise that God's law in its entirety remains a part of the covenant that Christians commit to by accepting a personal relationship with God. This idea of the covenant as containing within it the entirety of biblical law as revealed in scripture leads to interesting implications, and I will briefly examine some of them here.

For example, one friend of mine has recently written a lengthy and quite authoritative study on the biblical precedent for self-defense springing from the case law of the Penteteuch. It follows that if that one considers that law to be authoritative and binding in its entirety for Christians today unless specifically revised by the New Testament, that self-defense remains a right, and the defense of innocent life remains a responsibility for Christians today. The only way one can sever the link is either through dubious interpretations of the NT that are themselves divorced from proper context, or through denying the validity of the entire Bible to the conduct of Christians. If one does not wish to obey God's commands, and is not willing to admit one's self as a sinner (as, unfortunately, is necessary for me to do quite often) one is left to partake of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil and face the punishment of a rebel and a traitor to God's kingdom.

Another friend of mine was a co-writer some years ago in a short book about Sabbath observance which has created quite a storm. Though I struggle to put into practice the ideals of that book about Sabbath observance, it did trigger some thinking about how people react when their actions fall short of the standards of, say, Nehemiah. A friend of mine, who disagreed quite strongly with the analysis and found the point of the research to be glaringly obvious (it is), nonetheless conceeded that if Christians are to be an example to the world that it would then follow that these recommendations would need to be followed. Are we not to be an example to the world? We have not been called to retreat from this world, though we are called to be different from the world even as we interact with the world and provide examples of how citizens of God's kingdom should behave, which would automatically make us an example, whether we want to be or not. What this means is sometimes difficult to determine, though it is something we should always keep in mind.

Even in my own writings, without realizing it, I have examined matters from a Theonomic perspective. An example of this is in my work on the development of Christian virtue, in which I maintained that the development of Christian virtue comes through internalizing God's law such that it no longer becomes a list of do's and don'ts, but rather becomes so entrenched that one sees the law as a prompting to behave in love far beyond the minimum requirements of the law (see, for example, the way in which Boaz surpassed the minimum requirement of allowing Ruth to glean and was prompted to show great generosity to her without shaming her). It is in this sense that the law remains, not as a billy club to pound others for not being obedient, but rather as a way to develop, through the habit of obedience, the very loving character of God Himself, so that we may become more like Him in the way in which we conduct our lives. It is also in this way that we can redeem our own families and congregations, one life at a time.

Perhaps it is in this way that my agreement with the Theonomists is most profound, because it is not something to be done from the top-down, but rather from the bottom-up, and all redemption must spring from the free choice of people, one at a time, to accept the divine offer of unmerited grace. It is only then that redemption can work its magic to heal the wounds of life in a fallen world, to turn repentant sinners into fitting examples of godly behavior, and to help redeem the curse that has fallen upon this world.