Does theonomy really cause Federal Vision?

The answer is "kind of."   True, there is no explicit connection between theonomy and federal vision theology.  However, in both you see a marginalization of Reformed theological sources.  If you see theonomists quote older theologians like Warfield or whomever, it is mainly for Warfield's postmillennialism or some comment on civil ethics.  Rarely is it on the gospel.

But if you push a theonomist in the corner, they will affirm (usually) justification by free grace.  But why did it take so long to get there?

It comes down to this: both are suspicious of post-Calvin sources of Reformed theology.  Both see the period from Beza until Kuyper as one of philosophical compromise.  Ironically, this is Karl Barth's thesis.  Both accidentally erode the foundations of Reformed thought.

Issues Theonomy Needs to Resolve

These are not defeaters to theonomy.  They are simply loose ends taken from conversations with the so-called Level-Headed Christian Reconstruction Group."

1) to what extent is any talk of "equity" either allowed or inevitable?  Most recons today really don't know what equity means (of course, few critics of theonomy know either).

2) Just because almost all of Christendom advocated some usage of the judicial laws does not prove Bahnsenian theonomy.   Bahnsen advocated a specific hermeneutics.  Brian Schwertely is really the only theonomist who understands this.  

3) Which denomination/confessional stance will interpret the laws?  This is a big problem.  We all laugh at the idea of "nondenominational churches" but advocate just that with regards to the State (except for Covenanters, but that entails another set of problems). Case in point: will the Sabbath be enforced?  The Rushdoony and Gary North students say no.  Morecraft (and probably Bahnsen if he were alive) would say yes.  

3a) Will pornography be allowed in the public forum?  Surprisingly, a number of recons say they can't pass laws against it because the Bible doesn't legally condemn it.  Perhaps the bible doesn't, but this is a hard pill to swallow.  

3b) What is the penalty for prostitution?  Many recons say the Bible only condemns Temple (whether pseudo-Yahwist or Ba'al) prostitution, not the lady on South 3rd Street.  Yet this goes against almost every Western law tradition, even secular 

Modern Theonomy: A Crisis of Vision, A Crisis of Voice

It's hard to get excited about the recent theonomy debate.  It doesn't matter who "won."  (Is it really possible to objectively "win" a debate, anyway?)  Even if theonomy "won" that debate, it would be a Pyrrhic victory, which leads to the point of this post:

Quo vadis, Theonomy?

Who is the public leader and spokesman for theonomy today?  One could remark that since it is not a "movement," there is no need for a leader.  That's not true, though.  Even if the US Govt introduces theonomic codes, which will never happen, some "voice" will be informing said Republican Congressmen.   And such a voice in any situation usually will be the most capable.

So who is the voice?

Probably American Vision, I think.  They are the ones sponsoring the debates and putting out the material.  One could say "Chalcedon Foundation," but American Vision has traditionally been pro-GOP politics, so they get the edge.

Leaders like Gentry will not take the role for a variety of reasons.  Morecraft is the bishop, practically speaking, of his own denomination and he has mostly alienated all of NAPARC.  Leaders can't be merely capable.  They have to have influence as well.

Who else is out there that doesn't reduce to one of the above categories?

So why is this a problem if it falls to American Vision?  It's a problem for theonomy because theonomic discussions are now divorced from the Church setting, particularly at the synodal level.  Whatever problems NAPARC leaders may have, presbyteries can hold each other accountable and keep a lot of nonsense from emerging.  Would the debate over the audio rights happened if there were mature third-party mediation (like a synod)?  You see my point.

And since most NAPARC churches merely tolerate theonomy, theonomists now that they can't "make a difference" from within the churches themselves.  They literally have to go "outside" the church.   At this point any "kingdom activity" has been reduced to the level of a parachurch (and Rushdoony was quite explicit on this point).  Now people will have to face the question:  where do I want to invest time and money where it will do the most (perceived) good?

The Church doesn't promise civic righteousness.  It doesn't promise outward justice lex talionis.   It is the kingdom of mercy (though aspects of judgment are present).  The Church promises that Jesus will feed you at his Table.  The Church promises that Jesus will speak to you from his Word.

If given the choice at the end of the day, what would you prefer:  Taking Back City Hall or Eating with Jesus?

Theonomy and the Steroids Effect

I wrote this at Bayou Huguenot a few years ago and I was reflecting on my own life.  But even then the article was somewhat abstract.  Since then I participated (much to my shame) in the "Level Headed Reconstructionist" group on facebook.  I don't want to be mean, and I am well aware of my own limitations (quite painfully), but these guys are the 4 year olds of theology.  They don't know how much they don't know, yet they think--due to their understanding of Van Til--that they know everything.   

One of the dangers in taking steroids while lifting weights is that despite all the gains, the level you reach is likely the highest you will ever reach.   Once you get off steroids, and even the biggest “user” won’t take them perpetually (No one does steroids, or even creatine, during the regular season for risk of dehydration), it is unlikely you will ever reach those levels naturally again.

We see something similar in theological studies.   Deciding which area to major in will determine how deep one’s theological knowledge can get.   Here was my (and many others; and for what it’s worth, throughout this post substitute any Federal Vision term in place of a theonomy term and the point is largely the same) problem in institutional learning:  I immediately jumped on how important apologetics was for the Christian life to the extent that I made apologetical concerns overwhelm theological concerns.  While I believe Greg Bahnsen died entirely orthodox, and I do not believe theonomy is a heresy (only an error), focusing on Bahnsen’s method to such an extent, both in apologetics and ethics, warped the rest of theology.   I essentially made theology proper (and soteriology and ecclesiology) subsets of apologetics/ethics, instead of the other way around.
I won’t deny:  I became very good at apologetics and ethics, but I didn’t know jack about theology outside of a basic outline of Berkhof.   Studying Reformed theology among sources, and worse, movements, who are only barely Reformed (Bahnsen excluded), limited how deep I could go in Reformed theology.

I’ll say it another way:  when I was taking covenant theology we had to read sections of Gisbertus Voetius and Cocceius in class.  I got frustrated thinking, “These guys are tying in the covenant of works with natural law.  Don’t they know how un-reformed natural law is?”  Problem was, I was wrong.  But if you read the standard theonomic (or FV; by the way, the FV fully adopts the Barthian, and now historically falsified, Calvin vs. Calvinist paradigm) historiography, there is no way to avoid such misreadings.  Even worse, said historiography fully prevents one from learning at the feet of these high Reformed masters.

By the grace of God I’ve repented of that misreading.  I spent this spring finding as many Richard Muller journal articles and taking copious notes.

Theonomy Demands Natural Law

Jus Divinum on the Mosaic Judicials .

We answer, the Laws of the Jewish Church, whether Ceremonial or Judicial, so far forth are in force, even at this day, as they were grounded upon common equity, the principles of reason and nature, and were serving to the maintenance of the Moral Law. … The Jewish Politie is only abrogated in regard of what was in it of particular right, not of common right, so far forth as there was in their Laws either a typicalness proper to their Church, or a peculiarness of respect to their state in that Land of Promise given unto them.  Whatsoever was in their Laws of Moral concernment, or general equity is still obliging …[2]

Conclusion:  Whatever else 19.4 might mean, it clearly states that the use of the judicials in today’s society presupposes some understanding and application of natural law and common sense equity.  This doesn’t mean theonomy is necessarily right or wrong.  However, it does shed some light on how American theonomists tell the narrative.   If one adds to the mix a hyper-presuppositionalism and a fear of all things Thomistic, then there is no way he or she can read the judicials in the way that the writers of the Confession intended.

Equity is a natural law concept, full stop.  The anti-scholastic theonomist of today is borrowing from Thomistic categories in order to reject Thomistic categories (the irony of this somewhat Van Tillian sentence is thick).

I will say the problem another way.  There are two hermeneutical worlds (courtesy of John Stott).

Mosaic World                                                                                               Today's Application

(How do you apply the two on issues where there isn't a clear connection between the two?)

Mosaic World ---------------------------Equity--------------------Today's Application

Here is the problem:  even if theonomy is correct on this point, equity is a generic category that doesn't necessarily include Mosaic specifics.  Equity presupposes (!) that one use analogy and accepted ideas of fairness, and it doesn't always tell you what that is.  But the Bible doesn't really give a complete list of generalities on fairness.

This is why something like Reid's Common Sense Realism is inevitable.

Theonomy Files: The Collapse of Christian Reconstruction

I suppose the inevitable question, one loaded with irony, is that given Christian Reconstruction’s commitment to the bible and postmillennialism, how come the movement fractured immediately and society is not reconstructed?  Before we get into the individual faults of the men and camps, it is important to first note perhaps why they were prone to fracturing.

The easiest answer is that the American Reformed church didn’t want that kind of thinking within it.  I don’t mean the more wacky elements of CR.  Let’s stick with a mainstream figure like Greg Bahnsen.  Bahnsen stayed within the communion of the local Presbyterian church.  Bahnsen never associated himself within the wilder elements of CR.  Yet he was probably hated the most by so-called Reformed Institutions.  I think they correctly realized that if Bahnsen’s views on civil government are correct, then much of the Presbyterian mindset today needs to be revamped.  It was understood, however, that remaining good Americans was preferable.   Theonomy was blackballed.  It was never officially condemned, but still..

As a result, many CR leaders knew they wouldn’t be welcomed in the presbyteries.   So they reasoned:  too bad for the presbyteries!  For all the problems and limitations in local presbyteries, they do keep individuals from going off the deep end.   We will soon see why.

1. Rushdoony:  On one hand it’s a good t hing that Rushdoony’s (and by the way, it is spelled “Rushdoony.”  A number of moderators on Puritanboard adamantly insisted it was spelled “Rushdooney,” the typing of the cover of his books notwithstanding) errors are so easy to see.   Being egregious errors and out in the open, they are fairly easy to avoid.  His main errors are the dietary laws, ecclesiology, and shallow readings of some Reformed sources.  I won’t bother refuting the dietary laws.   I suspect his personal experiences drove his ecclesiology.  I don’t know the whole story, though Gary North has documented it here.   Evidently he got angry at some obviously wrong practices of a part of the OPC and separated himself from church bodies for the greater part of a decade.A bit more minor issue but one more prevalent is that many young CRs began their study of theology by beginning with Rushdoony.  As a result, many simply parroted his slogans without really understanding all the theology and philosophy behind it.  Their grasp of Reformed theology was very tenuous beyond the basics.   Once they came across sharp Anchorite apologists, they were toast.  They didn’t have the strong foundation in Turretin, Hodge, and Owen that older men had.  Had they begun with the latter and had a decent foundation, then they could have approached Rushdoony with the sense of applying some of his legitimate insights.Finally, people who really follow Rushdoony have a hard time accepting any criticism of the man.
2. Was the home-church movement an inevitable spin off from Rushdoony?  That he endorsed something like it is clear, but most Reformed people understand he is wrong on that point.  I think one of the dangers of the home church movement is that apart from any presbyterial oversight, there is nothing stopping the members fromembodying outrageous positions.
3. Gary North:  Gary North held the high ground until 2,000.  His Y2K debacle lost him his credibility.  Others have pointed out his refusal to condemn the Federal Vision, though truth be told, would it have mattered?  Most people stopped listening to him in 2,000.   Would his condemning FV in 2003 have changed anything?  It’s a shame that he got tied in with y2K predictions and Federal Vision associations.   Many of his key arguments were never refuted (or even addressed).  I have in mind the judicial sanctions in history argument.  It’s ultimately why I can’t hold to historic premillennialism in the long run (see future post).Another of his problems would be the Tyler connection.  This really isn’t that big a problem compared to Rushdoony.   Tyler had the bizarre mixture of independent congregationalism and quasi-sacerdotal episcopalianism.  Aside from some caustic and hilarious rhetoric aimed at the Institutional Reformed, there isn’t much to accuse him of.
4. Was Federal Vision inevitable?  This is hard to answer.  If you read Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics carefully, you will notice how mainstream and normal his method and footnotes are.  He is citing standard P&R and evangelical textbooks on hermeneutics and the Sermon on the Mount.   All of this is wildly at odds with the later Federal Visionists.  This would explain why Federal Vision advocates at least two generations afterwards rejected Bahnsen (some even ridiculed him).   Jim Jordan very clearly rejected theonomy. So to say that Bahnsen led to the Federal Vision is a classic instance of the correlation = causation fallacy.

Gary North notes that CR split into two camps:  Tyler Ecclesiasticalism and Rushdoony’s Home Church Patriarchalism (those theonomists remaining faithful to the local church and presbytery held to a theoretical theonomy, but kept it at that.  The exception would be the micro-Presbyterians like Joe Morecraft).

Pauline Studies as a Formal Theology

One prediction I made about a decade ago was that the hyper TRs in the Reformed world, after having dealt with theonomy and Federal Vision by means of biblical theology arguments, would themselves turn on Biblical Theology and deal with it accordingly.

To say it another way: it's hard to see any rapprochement between biblical and systematic theology in the modern TR conversation.  Note:  I do not criticize Reformed people.  I am in the Reformed tradition.   In any have reason to boast of being a Calvinist, I have more:

Catechized on the 8th day, of the people of Scotland, of the tribe of Cameron, a Scot of Scots, a blogger in the church, as to righteousness under the Law, condemned.

No, I do not think the Church Universal (yeah, I said it) would be as well off today if not for the Reformed faith.  However, it's hard to be optimistic about the future.

Some thinkers have attempted to show the limits of Wrightean acceptance and I like their summaries. I think Mr Wedgeworth did a good job summarizing the issues.  This post isn't to condemn or vindicate Wright, though I am sympathetic to his general project. 

Rather, I think Pauline studies can be used as a guideline for how the church interacts with culture, controversy, and the world (or "civitas" to keep the alliteration going).  Pauline theology is never abstract.  Yet, it maintains its universality. 

For example, the problem of church unity has long bothered me.  While I feel comfortable with my responses to Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy on this point, it's hard to shake the initial challenge.  They seem unified (except to each other!) while Protestantism is fragmented.  What do we say to that?  We say what Paul said, "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek."  Wait a minute, you respond, that's not answering the question. No, but it's Paul's answer.  If you speak of church unity apart from the blessed reality that Jewish believers and Gentile believers have table fellowship, then you aren't Pauline.  We need to rethink our entire categories. 

Someone will say, "Aren't you New Perspective?"  How do you really respond to that?  I don't think I am.  My formal answer to that question is "no."  But here's the deal:  I am more interested in doing biblical studies and biblical theology than in answering Reformed Shibboleths.  If N.T. Wright helps me solve a problem that's bugged me for over a decade, good for him.  Why must I join sides?