The Gospel Coalition published a critique of theonomy a couple days ago, that just cries out for a response.
So you know where I'm coming from, I don't believe the goal of a Christian society should be to adopt the Torah's civil law wholesale and to the letter. The resurrection has transformed the "telos" (goal) of the law to Christ. Some OT laws that called for death now would call for excommunication, or a lighter civil punishment, or none.
But I also don't like the author's pluralist assumptions, that the state should be neutral to any and all religious claims. Of course, no state should make religious minorities live as second-class citizens, but for the state to assume Christian truth pleases God and will helpfully impose morality on many who disagree (no murder, pedophilia, abortion, etc.).
With that intro, here's a walkthrough of the article.
1. The author is a Southern Baptist, with understandable reactions against established religion. In Reformation history, it was Calvinists, Lutherans, and other state religions that drowned them for disagreeing with paedo-baptism, for example. So the deck is stacked against theonomy from the start, by who is writing.
2. Intro - Walker is right that newer teachers are taking up the mantle of Reconstruction, from a generation or two ago. There is a direct line from Rushdoony (RJR) to Fight Laugh Feast and Jeff Durbin. No need to hide this, though the latter seldom cite their sources. I don't think they are being sneaky, just not looking to dredge up old debates.
3. Yes, there is a distinction between Reconstruction (culture building) and Theonomy (reading the Bible a certain way). But they are inseparable, inherently. If you read Scripture with any sort of theonomic impulse, you are motivated to conform your culture to the standards of the whole Word of God. Is this wrong? Is it the same as Handmaiden's Tale theocracy? (Hint: no.)
4. Interesting claim, that theonomy is more a "mood and mode of engagement" today than an intellectual movement. This rings true to me. Today's proponents are standing on Bahnsen's and RJR's shoulders, assuming their work as valid, and doing something different from them. They are arguing against contrary assumptions in the Reformed world today: "Radical Two Kingdom theology," natural law advocates, the stay-out-of-politics crowd, and the overall pessimism regarding culture wars.
5. Walker distinguishes between General Equity Theonomy (apply all God's law generally in some way), and RJR theonomy (apply the letter of the whole law to society). Since I'm a general equity advocate, the rest of the article seemed a straw-man fallacy to me. Walker critiqued the RJR brand (a form of theocracy), and seldom the general equity brand.
6. One of the disagreements is over natural law and revealed law. The theonomist would ask, if the fall has twisted our thoughts and common sense (noetic effects of the fall), how can we rely on natural law? The critic would ask, "hasn't the OT civil law passed away in application, with the coming of Christ? Hasn't God revealed more to us than just a law code specific for Israel at one time? Bringing Adam and Eve together in the garden affirms everything about the design of marriage that the civil codes do," the argument goes. Here, I side with the theonomist: Exodus-Deuteronomy law expands on the design of marriage in very specific ways that go beyond common sense, or what we can figure out from creation. Why would we ignore that, or assume such creational marriage principles passed away with the coming of Christ?
7. Walker: "The error of Theonomy is that its hermeneutic stretches beyond the Bible's understanding of its own authority."
This is a fancy way of saying, "the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean for the OT scaffolding to remain after the NT building is finished." This begs the question. What part of the law is scaffolding that comes down once the building is finished (Christ has come), and what should remain as a goal to pursue today in our personal and cultural life?
8. Walker's assertion that theonomy "instrumentalizes religion" is fascinating. I take his point to be that the real goal in theonomy is transforming society, and saving the soul is just a means to that end. In his mind, the goal should be the soul spared damnation. The end of the Bible shows both, without priority given. Souls are spared the lake of fire, and the New Jerusalem is a "reconstructed" society without sorrow and sighing.
Walker is on to something that many in my circles seem more passionate about changing society and winning culture wars, than saving souls. Some of us pursue a theology of glory too much, rejecting the theology of the cross. That is a fault, but they are also right to not reduce the gospel to a conversion experience. How now shall I live?
9. Walker gives away his baptist assumptions when he says "the NT affirms nine of [the Ten Commandments]." To him, if the NT doesn't reaffirm it, it is passed away. To me, if the NT doesn't undo the OT specifically, it remains in effect.
The issue here is the NT political context, not at all friendly to the emerging Christian religion (think Nero!). Did Paul, when writing Romans 13 and Philemon, mean for us to stay in that posture of compliance with and distance from the state, or to advance to a point where we disciple the state, magistrate, and nations to follow Christ in their official policies? Was Knox wrong to preach to Queen Mary? Shouldn't the church say to its culture and government: "Stop keeping slaves!" "Stop killing babies!" Was John the Baptist wrong to apply the Levitical code to Herod in his marriage, winding him in jail, then executed? Paul worked the personal angle with Philemon. Are we limited to that? Is it wrong to take a prophetic tack with the state as John did?
10. The OT law is not just a contextualized timestamped snapshot of the natural law, which we can figure out from the rest of Scripture and common sense. (This seems to be Walker's view.) The OT law is God's Word. It is not retired wholesale with Christ's coming, nor is it something to follow to the letter without change, as Hebrews shows.
11. Walker is right that theonomy "presupposes a Christian society that does not exist." But he begs the question to assume it never could. We ought to work toward this, even if it is several steps down the road. It is unhelpful to try to do step 4 of the instructions before step 1, that part of his critique is valid. But to assume we will never get beyond step 1 is equally unhelpful. Some cultures in history have been at step 3 or 4, out of 5. To assume none have gotten beyond step 2, and none ever can, is prejudicial pessimism.
12. "Theonomy cannot build a just society"
No the law can't do that, and that is not the theonomist argument. The gospel can! The gospel points people to obey God's Word and if this happens widescale in a society, reconstructing Christian culture is not a Quixotic quest. Later, Walker commits the fallacy of bifurcation to assert that a widely converted society would pursue freedom for all, not "enact a theonomic agenda." For the most part, these two options actually overlap.
When they don't? What do you do with the blasphemer - stone him? I would say, no. As with the woman caught in adultery, in the New Covenant, sentences are lightened, though the sin is still recognized and dealt with. Here is Walker's straw-man again, assuming the theonomist would do exactly as was done to the blasphemer in Exodus, when that is not the theonomic position, as I understand it.
13. Can we build a just society on common grace? That is a question dividing these two camps. The baptist asserts that a government can stumble along with decent enough justice, given God's law written on the heart and common sense. The theonomist asserts that common grace can only take us so far. Such a society will be riddled with inconsistencies and corruption in the state, since they suppress the truth that God reveals to them by His common grace. Only submission to Christ and God's revealed truth can bring a just society. I think the latter is right.
14. "We are not discipling nations for the sake of political hegemony."
Goodness, no one said we were! It is for the sake of Christ. Walker's view, on the other hand, seems to be to NOT disciple the nations. Shall we do what Jesus SAID to do, even when we are tempted to do so for the wrong reasons (political hegemony)? Or shall we NOT do what Jesus said to do, so we aren't tempted to do it for the wrong reasons?
15. Is theonomy inherently statist?
Walker ends with this assertion. Theonomy is opposed to a state granting freedom of religious expression. This critique suffers from the secular (devilish, really) assumption that freedom is the right to do whatever you want to do. But biblical freedom is the freedom to obey and serve God, not bound by our sinful desires. Should that truth never touch the government's policy? That's the libertarian's mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment