Grudem’s Gross Caricature of Theonomy

“There is a view among a few Christians today in the United States today called theonomy. It is also called Christian Reconstructionism; sometimes dominion theology. Critics have labeled it dominionism which has echoes of ‘Jihadism.’ I will use the term theonomy which is the general term used in theological critiques of this movement. Theonomists argue that the OT laws God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws used in the nations today.”

Wayne Grudem
Politics According To The Bible

1.) Theonomy and Reconstructionism are not synonyms. Theonomy is to Reconstuctionism what jet engines are to passenger jet airliners. Theonomy is an aspect of Reconstructionism just as jet engines are an aspect to passenger jet airliners but just as a jet airliner is more than just the jet engines so Reconstructionism is more than just Theonomy. Because this is true it is entirely possible for someone to be a Theonomist without being a Reconstructionist. (Whether they can be so consistently is a entirely different question.) Reconstructionism includes Theonomic principles but it also includes postmillennial eschatology, particular views on culture beyond just theonomy’s guidance on law, set hierarchical convictions on social order considerations, set views on theological issues like common grace and often some kind of patrio-centric views on family.

Grudem clearly is out of his depth here on this quote as seen by his inability to make the kind of distinctions made above. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned about civil law order for society while Reconstructionism has far broader macro cultural concerns. All Reconstructionists are theonomists (I think) but not all theonomists are Reconstructionists.

2.) Critics say all kinds of stupid things. For Grudem to include the jab comparing Reconstructionism to Jihadism in his book is outrageous. How many Reconstructionists do you know of since 1970 who have been suicide bombers? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have hijacked Airplanes and have demanded to be flown to the Reconstructionists equivalent of Syria? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have killed people for burning a copy of Rushdoony’s Institutes? To include this fatuous comparison to Jihadism (even if it is only “echoes”) is beyond the pale and requires the strongest possible rebuke.

3.) As we have seen theonomy is not the general term. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned with applying the general equity of the case laws of the Old Testament to a Nations civil law order. It is a theology that has been advocated, in one form or another, ever since the Reformation.

4.) The thing that is so maddening about Grudem’s position is that he critiques Theonomy negatively and then later on his book turns around and quotes OT law that prohibits incest. Now, if Grudem views the central premise of Theonomy — the abiding validity of all God’s law for all time unless specifically rescinded at a later point in revelation’s account of the History of Redemption — then how can he consistently appeal to that central premise later in his book in order to find support for the outlawing of incest? If the OT case law is no longer valid then what matters it what the OT says when it comes to incest?

For a discussion on this subject see

Not Imposing Christianity Through National Law

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

4 thoughts on “Grudem’s Gross Caricature of Theonomy”

  1. Bret, would you say the following 5 points sum up Christian Reconstruction adequately?:

    1. Covenant theology
    2. Calvinism
    3. Presuppositionalism
    4. Theonomy
    5. Post-millennialism

    On another note, I have absolutely no sympathy for Grudem’s pathetic understanding of Christian Reconstruction and theonomy due to the massive volume of *free* literature available on these subjects (from the ICE website, for example). As a layman, his insulting caricature of theonomy and Christian Reconstruction would be inexcusable. How much more given his status as a professional theologian?

  2. I’ve always like this website (and still do), but I think you’re way off-base on this one.

    Wayne Grudem’s book is 600 pages, and for you to pull one quote for “rebuke” seems highly inappropriate. As a complete work, his Politics According to the Bible, is a valuable resourse, and comes at a time very much needed in America. Grudem’s theological insight and superb reference might make a great impact on “Chidtian” America — if only it’s not torn apart by fellow believers “straining at gnats, but swallowing a camel.”

    As for the “Jihadism” comment, did you take the time to reference Islamic theology? Jihad doesn’t necessarily mean “suicide bomber.” Jihad could mean warfare, but is typically just a reference to “the struggle.” We could use your “jet aircraft” analogy in this context also — jihad and mujahadeen (holy warrior) are related, but not necessarily the same thing, no?

    Please realize, I agree with most dominionism theology, but we can’t ignore that scripture can be twisted by those with less faith. I can easily picture someone (or groups) using the Word to justify using swords. There are problems with Reconstructionism. Wayne Grudem, in the context of “politics” is correct to be sceptical.

    Ex Animo,
    Robert

  3. Thanks Robert.

    I find no problems with Reconstructionism that aren’t less problematic then the problems inherent in all other lesser Christianities. Though, with that caveat, I am willing to concede that Reconstructionism has problems.

    Do you really think that the Jihad comment, in the context it was in, was supposed to refer to anything but the Holy War against the infidel? I know that a few Muslims interpret it as a inward battle but that certainly is not the majority conviction.

    I’m just not a big fan of Grudem.

    Thanks again Robert for your thoughtful rebuke.

    I really mean that. Don’t want no Amen choir here.

  4. oops … “Chidtian” America should read “Christian.”

    Sorry for the typo. I’d like to blame it on my iPhone’s spellchecker, but I’m pretty sure it’s my fingers working faster than my brain. šŸ™‚

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *