The Christian position known as Theonomy or Christian Reconstruction has numerous defenders and critics. There are plenty of books available making the case and attacking the case. So I am not adding anything new to the debate, just speaking to some aspects of it, at least for the beginner. Those who know nothing about this movement and its various pros and cons are advised to read my introductory piece.
Here I want to look at just one aspect of Reconstructionism. And that is to deal with one set of misrepresentations and faulty characterisations of the movement. Both non-Christians and Christians can make these mistaken accusations about it.
And they have to do with the related charges of what some critics claim theonomists believe:
- that we can bring in the Kingdom by our own efforts;
- that remaking society is the main aim;
- that the church should rule the nations;
- that we should seek to force people to become believers; and
- that we must make this world a better place by taking over society and its institutions.
These charges against this position have been made over and over again, and they have been answered over and over again. My intention here is to simply let these folks answer these accusations in their own words. Quoting directly from a number of these theonomists from their various works should dispel some of these mistaken ideas about the movement.
But before proceeding, let me briefly mention three further things. One, to write on theonomy – or any other Christian, biblical or theological position or movement – does not necessarily mean I am gung-ho in favour of it. I am simply trying to lay out as fairly and accurately as I can what these various views and groups in fact are saying. Folks are of course welcome to disagree with theonomy, but at least they should disagree with what it in fact teaches, and not go after straw men.
Two, this is the second in an irregular series on theonomy, and as can be seen, its focus is quite narrow and particular. It is looking at just one aspect. And related to this, three, to try to elucidate what they believe in these areas may likely raise as many questions as are answered. So more articles will be needed in the days ahead, if we want to do justice to what these folks believe and teach.
So with those provisos in place, here are just some quotes from some of the authors on what they do and do not mean in this regard:
Greg Bahnsen
“All civil law will be legislated morality, in some sense infringing on someone’s freedom. The civil law does not aim to regenerate men but simply to restrain their outward behavior. Such laws are necessary to a social order, establishing the limits of liberty and the public standards to which all members of the community must conform.” Homosexuality, p. 124
“In addition to localized imperatives and cultural details of expression, we would note that certain administrative details of Old Testament society are not normative for today (for example, the type or form of government, the method of tax collecting, the location of the capitol). These aspects of Old Testament life were not prescribed by standing law, and they do not bind us today.” By This Standard, p. 6
“Furthermore, it should be observed that these studies do not advocate the imposition of God’s law by force upon a society, as though that would be a way to ‘bring in the kingdom.’ God’s kingdom advances by means of the Great Commission—evangelism, preaching, and nurture in the word of God—and in the power of God’s regenerating and sanctifying Spirit. While these studies take a distinctive position regarding the law of God and the modern state, they do not focus upon a method of political change. The concern is rather with the standard of political justice.
“Thus it might be well to avert misconceptions here by repudiating any thought of the church taking up the sword in society, any thought of rebellion against the powers that be, and likewise any thought of mindless submission to the status quo in one’s society. Our commitment must be to the transforming power of God’s word which reforms all areas of life by the truth. Ignoring the need for socio-political reform or trying to achieve it by force both contradict the church’s reformational responsibilities.” By This Standard, pp. 9-10
“We are not advocating the forcible ‘imposition’ of God’s law on an unwilling society. ‘Theonomists’ preach and promote biblical law’s authority and wisdom, praying that citizens will be persuaded willingly to adopt God’s standards as the law of the land. As secularists campaign and debate to see their convictions influence civil law, so Christians should work to have God’s word influence civil law instead. We do not advocate any modern ‘holy war’ or use of force to compel submission to God’s standards.” By This Standard, p. 322
Gary DeMar
“Regeneration is the starting point for Reconstructionists. Society cannot change unless people change, and the only way people can change is through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Those ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1) must have a ‘new heart’ and a ‘new spirit.’…
“There is no way to change our world unless people are given the will to change (1 Corinthians 2:14). The instrument of that change is the preaching of the gospel, not political involvement, imposing biblical law on an unwilling citizenry, or, as some have inaccurately said concerning Christian Reconstruction, ‘taking over the government.’ We will have a better world when we have better people. Better people are the result of changed hearts and minds. Only God can do this. He will do this. This is why evangelism is a priority….
“First, Christian Reconstructionists believe the kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus Christ. We do not ‘bring in the kingdom.’ Second, the kingdom is not man made. The Bible tells us that it’s the ‘Kingdom of God.’ Third, entering the kingdom comes through regeneration. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he cannot even ‘see the kingdom’ unless he is ‘born from above.’ that is “born again” (John 3:3).” The Debate Over Christian Reconstructionism, pp. 63-65
R. J. Rushdoony
“For us, it is regeneration, not revolution, which alone makes true and effectual change. All efforts to change men and societies apart from atonement, justification, and regeneration in and through Jesus Christ are failures and only create social structures built on sand.” Sovereignty, p. 37
“The only true order is founded on biblical law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law order represents an anti-Christian religion. But the key to remedying the situation is not revolution, nor any kind of resistance that works to subvert law and order. The New Testament abounds in warnings against disobedience and in summons to peace. The key is regeneration, propagation of the gospel, and the conversion of men and nations to God’s law-word. Meanwhile, the existing law order must be respected, and neighboring law orders must be respected as far as is possible without offense to one’s own faith. The pagan law order represents the faith and religion of the people; it is better than anarchy, and it does provide a God-given framework of existence under which God’s work can be furthered. The modern perspective leads to revolutionary intolerance: either a one-world order in terms of a dream, or ‘perpetual warfare for perpetual peace’.” The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 113-114
“This brings us to the crucial difference between Biblical law and humanistic law. Laws grounded on the Bible do not attempt to save man or to usher in a brave new world, a great society, world peace, a poverty-free world, or any other such ideal. The purpose of Biblical law, and all laws grounded on a Biblical faith, is to punish and restrain evil, and to protect life and property, and to provide justice for all people. It is not the purpose of the state and its law to change or reform men: this is a spiritual matter and a task for religion. Man can be changed only by the grace of God through the ministry of His Word. Man cannot be changed by statist legislation; he cannot be legislated into a new character. The evil will or heart of man can be restrained by law, in that a man can be afraid of the consequences of disobedience. We all slow down a bit on the freeway when we see a patrol car, and we are always mindful of speed regulations. The fact of law and the strict enforcement of law are restraints upon man’s sinful inclinations. But, while a man can be restrained by strict law and order, he cannot be changed by law; he cannot be saved by law. Man can only be saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.” Law and Liberty, p. 3
“Law is good, proper, and essential in its place, but law can save no man, nor can law remake man and society. The basic function of law is to restrain (Rom. 13:1-4), not to regenerate, and when the function of law is changed from the restraint of evil to the regeneration and reformation of man and society, then law itself begins to break down, because an impossible burden is being placed upon it. Today, because too much is expected from law, we get fewer and fewer results from law, because law is put to improper uses. Only as we return to a Biblical foundation for law shall we again have a return to justice and order under law. ‘Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it’ (Ps. 127:1).” Law and Liberty, p. 5
Douglas Wilson
Yes, I know, Wilson is not really a theonomist or Christian Reconstructionist as such, although many of his sympathies would lie in that direction. So a brief quote here is in order from his 2018 article, “A Primer on Theocracies”:
“Third, we certainly have to deal with the popular connotations of the word theocracy, the sense of the word that Moore assumes throughout his article. By theocracy he means evil theocracies, with everything being made worse because it is being done in the name of God. Stealing and pillage is bad enough without being done under the aegis of Heaven. We are here confronted with the Iran of the ayatollahs, or the predations of the Spanish Inquisition. But what word should we use for those who, in the name of Jesus, fought to outlaw the slave trade, or overturn Roe, or restore a rightful definition of marriage? If it is done in the name of Christ, it is theocratic. If we ditch the authority of Christ (in order to avoid being called theocratic), we then have no answer when the inevitable why? and who says? questions come. We must as Americans protect religious liberty. Why? Who says?
“And fourth, we must carefully distinguish theocracy, which is inescapable, from ecclesiocracy, rule by clerics, which is entirely escapable, and which should be escaped. In a Christian republic, the church would be a separate and distinct institution from the state. But the separation of church and state (an honored Christian position) is not the same thing as separating God and state, or morality and state, or ultimate questions from state. When you do that, for the sake of combating evil ecclesiocracies, you create a situation where we can no longer ban abortion mills on the basis of something that God said to Moses. This is because Agnosticism is now the official religion, and who’s to say? So when we remove a word from God, we are on our own. And when we go out on our own . . . well, fifty million and counting.”
More such quotes could be offered here, but you hopefully get the drift. We can dismiss some of the routine criticisms and charges levelled against theonomy by simply reading what these writers have actually said. That still does not mean you will want to agree with their position, but at least we can stick to what they DO believe instead of what we THINK they believe.
You must be logged in to post a comment.