Bret asked Chris Ortiz — Editor Of Chalcedon Magazine,
Do you get the sense that people are giving up on theonomy or are, in their estimation, “moving beyond it?”
Chris Ortiz responds,
A little bit of both, I think.
Part of the problem remains the central dividing line between Rush and North’s emphasis upon authority: Rush says family; North says church. The institutional emphasis of the church led to an over politicization of theonomy and dominion. Now, theonomy is equated with politics. In addition, much of institutional Church (Protestantism) at the same time views theonomy as a cancer to the organized church. Tyler failed, and that still haunts Christian Reconstruction.
On the other side is the Federal Vision where we are witnessing a quasi-repeat of Jordan, Sutton, and Chilton’s high church emphases in the 80s. Only this time, a few are moving all the way to Rome.
At present, those with greatest interest in Theonomy are stemming from the freedom/constitutional movements and the recent revival of conspiracy theory. This is due largely to the fact that reconstructionists have been consistent in identifying the inherent evil of statism, fiat currencies, etc.
Dave Ehnis followed up with a great question,
Chris, where does Bahnsen fit into this Venn diagram?
David, that’s a good question, because, in my opinion, Bahnsen was always the X factor in Christian Reconstruction. Bahnsen did not subscribe to North and Sutton’s five-point covenant model, and he disdained James Jordan’s Interpretive Maximalism. However, he also was a dedicated local church man of the OPC persuasion being very committed to the Westminster Confession. This set him somewhat at odds with Rushdoony. The present leader most reminiscent of Bahnsen’s basic positions is probably Joe Morecraft. They both embody a remarkable consistency to Presbyterian tradition.
Why was Rushdoony at odds with the OPC and/or the WCF?
I know Rushdoony didn’t agree with the WCF on their “covenant of works.”
Similarly, he didn’t agree with Calvin on Natural law — at least as it was expressed in Calvin’s Institutes.
Rushdoony went years and years without taking the Eucharist. I don’t know what the problem was with the Church. I know he believed the family to be the central institution.
I can’t speak to dividing lines between Rushdoony and North, or to how Bahnsen fit in, but I can tell you I find a silver lining to the problems we are seeing today.
For years people to whom I speak have dismissed the simple argument of “God’s law or chaos.” Now they see greater chaos than they ever imagined, with the promise of more on the horizon. Now these same people can’t bring themselves to deny what I have been saying. While they may not fully embrace it, they are at least contemplating how it may very well may be true.
Perhaps we will see the growth of theonomy.
Mark,
That’s a tough way to be seen as right, but eventually once we burn off the remaining Christian capital that informs our culture I can only see some kind of statist tyranny rule or chaos.
Thanks for visiting.
As of late, theonomy has been more of an infection than anything, especially with some moving toward sacerdotalism and kinism. It’s as if people took a tally of the worst positions held by the old leaders, adopted them, then made those central.
Of course, I could be wrong…