You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June, 2008.
My personal visits to various blogs over the course of the past few days has provoked a measure of curiosity with respect to theonomic ethics, and the historical, confessional, and Biblical legitimacy of theonomy in general. I’ve done some disorganized study throughout the years, but have never really taken the time to read and study primary source material. In an attempt to sharpen some theological awareness, I asked some of the guys at the Puritanboard to point me in some good directions. Many of the guys over there are theonomist’s, and pretty much unanimously suggested that I start with Rushdoony. R.J. Rushdoony is probably one of the more well known Christian Re-constructionist’s of our time, and has written extensively on Biblical law, Christian Reconstructionism, theonomic ethics, etc. etc. He helped start the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965, and has influenced the thinking of many Reformed scholars. Chalcedon’s website can be found here, along with a number of free materials including mp3’s, articles, online books, and a couple of different podcasts. I’ve spent the last few days listening to Rushdoony’s lectures on Christian Reconstruction. As I attempt to grow in my understanding of these issues, I’ll probably try to put down some thoughts for purposes of organization, clarity, etc. etc. Here’s what I’ve gathered so far. Just for clarification, these thoughts are mere summaries of what I’ve read and listened to, not my own personal opinions on these issues. My aim is to better understand the presuppositions governing the thought and practice of Christian Reconstructionism. Therefore, in an attempt to understand these movements better, I’ll leave the personal judgments for later. This post doesn’t so much deal with theonomy as it does with Reformed Christian Reconstructionism in general, lest anyone be confused. Here’s my summary:
Well before the rise of a formally systematized philosophical deism, there loomed in the theological consciousness of many Christian thinkers a pragmatic deism which sought to relegate God to heaven, and place the reigns of authority into the hands of human rulers. This functional deism relied upon an exegetically weak “two kingdom theology”, a theological paradigm which understood the kingdom as exclusively spiritual and unrelated to the responsibilities of civil rulers.
A Calvinistic worldview entails much more than a confessional adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Reformed faith, but a purposeful application of these doctrines to every sphere of life, including civil affairs. The sovereignty of God, far from being exclusively limited to issues of personal salvation, extends to every area of life. Related to this, covenantal thinking entails a total and absolute government in the hands of God exercised through the dominion of his people. This creation mandate is the foundation of all God’s law. God requires us to exercise dominion according to his law/word.
Where do we turn for guidance? Far from popular opinion, the word of God extends to every sphere of life, including the covenantal responsibilities of civil rulers. God, as the great suzerain, graciously gives his law to his people as the means through which they serve him. God’s law calls upon man, in Christ, to exercise government in his name. As members of Christ’s body, we are called to take all things captive to Jesus Christ and his kingdom.
As enemies of God, fallen man seeks godless dominion. Christ’s new humanity, unlike the enemies of God, are responsible to exercise a righteous dominion. In obedience to this command, we are to give supreme priority to the kingdom of God. This is why a realized eschatology is so important on a practical level. This means that:
1.) The kingdom must govern us. This includes churches, states, educational institutions, etc. etc. No sphere of life is disconnected from this kingdom dominion.
2.) This is a sovereign kingdom ruled by a sovereign King and Lord. The kingdom of a sovereign cannot be given to an enemy without sin. We cannot take any area of life and give it to the godless. Every area of life falls under Christ’s kingly rule.
3.) We are the sovereign’s people and creation. Christ is the Lord and Sovereign, not unregenerate man. Consequently, Christ’s people are to rule, not unregenerate man.
4). The kingdom is a law sphere. A sovereign whose every word is law rules over this sphere and claims dominion. The Bible is God’s law which must, of necessity, rule over every sphere of life.
How will this dominion be realized in time? The practical implications of Calvinism demand that nations, societies, government structures, and individual civil rulers be transformed from within by efficacious work of the Holy Spirit. This is why revolution is not an option. Christian Reconstruction, in the tradition of Reformation thinking, looks to God’s sovereign, covenantal, and irresistible condescension as the primary means through which societies are transformed. Regeneration, and not revolution, is the divinely prescribed remedy for the ills of our sinful societies.
The central pre-supposition governing the thought and practice of Christian Reconstructionism is that the kingdom of God extends to every sphere of life. Closely related to this is the theonomic insistence that the moral and civil law of God, far from being annulled, remains in full force. These two pre-suppositions provide a basic view into the reasoning of Christian Reconstructionism.
Here’s a response I recently posted at the Puritanboard in response to a question about W.G.T. Shedd and his infralapsarianism. The discussion can be found here. Also, a question was asked about R.C. Sproul’s position in this debate. Here’s the quote from Shedd.
God is the author of salvation, because He elects; but He is not the author of perdition because He reprobates. In the first instance, He is efficiently active by His Spirit and word; in the second instance He is permissively inactive. If John Doe throw himself into the water, and is rescued by Richard Roe, the statement would be that he is saved because Richard Roe rescued him. But if John Doe throw himself into the water and is not rescued by Richard Roe, the verdict of the coroner would be suicide and not homocide: ‘Drowned because he threw himself in’ and not ‘Drowned because Richard Roe did not pull him out.’ So it is with salvation and reprobation.
Here’s my response…
“Maybe I’m missing something, but don’t these differences reflect different stances with regard to the lapsarian controversy? Shedd was an unashamedly dogmatic infralapsarian, and I think that the quote reflects his position quite well. God, in some senses, inactively permits the fall of mankind and its consequent results. Negative language is used when describing God’s decrees. Personally, I’m a supralapsarian and, not surprisingly, think that Shedd’s position doesn’t go far enough. Shedd’s discussion of reprobation is framed in terms of passivity, permissive activity, etc. etc. etc. Maybe not all infralapsarians would use such theologically careless language, but I think the ethos of the argumentation would probably be similar to any other infralapsarian. Orthodox supralapsarianism (in the tradition of Beza, Twisse, Hoeksema, etc.) avoids any notion of equal ultimacy, while insisting that God’s decretive action toward both the reprobate and elect is positive. The decree of election and reprobation must precede creation and fall if God’s absolute sovereingty be maintained. God is the primary cause of all things (including the damnation of the reprobate) but not the efficient cause of all things (i.e.- the negative means whereby the reprobate are condemned in time). Sorry if what I’m saying is redundant. I’m not so much trying to reiterate what’s already been said. I just think that any questions over the theological legitmacy of Shedd’s statement strike the cord of fundamental differences in position with respect to the infra/supra debate. As for Sproul, he’s a classic infralapsarian. His discussion of double predestination is framed in terms of God’s decretive passivity with respect to the reprobate. For Sproul, election is positive and reprobation is thoroughly negative. For someone like Twisse or Hoeksema, reprobation is positive, while the exection of the decree in time is causally inefficient.
Mention the word “liturgy” to a 21st century evangelical geared toward
spontaneous expressions of pietistic devotion, and you might want to
just step back and watch the fireworks go off. Fixed prayers,
responsive readings, ancient doxologies, and liturgical uniformity all
rub against the grain of the excessive individualism which perpetually
cries for a mystical encounter with God, expressed in ways peculiar
and unique to the individual’s experience. Liturgy and Romanism are
often ignorantly equivocated in the attempt to augment this thoroughly
innovative approach to worship. What’s never recognized is that the
church has always recognized the need to express its devotion in forms
that are fixed, permanent, unvaried, and orthodox. What’s also hardly
recognized is that the very churches that decry a formal liturgy as
“Romish”, possess their own culturally conditioned liturgies. What
must be understood is that orthodoxy and liturgy work together.
Adversely, liturgical spontaneity and unorthodoxy are generally
complementary and compatible. When we begin to express our faith in
forms that are fixed, ancient, and unchanging, then we might just
witness a resurgence of love for the creedal orthodoxy of ancient
times in a largely anti-liturgical evangelicalism.
I think arrogance is at the bottom of this issue. Somehow we’ve duped
ourselves into thinking that we really don’t need the liturgical
wisdom of the larger church. Cultural contextualization is the name
of the game, even among those who blithely label themselves Reformed.
According to these types, we must constantly re-think and re-evaluate
liturgical forms according to the cultural context in which we
minister. The problem with this is that it operates under the assumption
that history really doesn’t matter that much. Taken to a far more
pernicious conclusion, it emerges as a worldview which regards
Christianity itself as generational, cultural, and ever-changing.
This error has manifested itself throughout the centuries in various
forms. Anabaptism, Enlightenment Christianity, revivalism, Finneyism,
seeker sensitivity, the emergent church- all of these movements have,
in some way or another, thrived on innovation, spontaneity,
contextualization, and a-historicism.
Christianity cannot be understood apart from its objective
historicity. More specifically, worship cannot be understood apart
from the historical foundation upon which it rests. While liturgical
expression will surely vary from culture to culture, the essential
ethos of corporate worship will remain the same. That is why the
liturgical practices of the ancient church speak to every generation
with such compelling wisdom. They rightly place worship within the
reverent and sober context in which it was meant to thrive. While
“Shine Jesus Shine” or “Every Move I Make” might seem culturally
relevant and contextually pragmatic, they really won’t speak to
mankind’s need for a thoroughly God-centered covenant dialogue in
which God speaks and we respond appropriately. Only the ancient
wisdom of the (c)atholic church will satisfy this need.
Anabaptism scoffs at the mediatorial role of the church by appealing to indirect causation and individualized encounters with deity. Romanism scoffs at reform by appealing to dubious notions of apostollic succession, insisting that the Roman church is the only legitimate ecclesiastical mediator of eucharistic grace. Reformed catholicism recognizes the church as the ecclesiastical mediator of supernatural grace through the ordinary ministry of word and sacrament. Unlike Anabaptism, Reformed catholicism recognizes the church as mother and mediator. The sacraments occupy a place of centrality without becoming a source of rank superstition, idolatry, and Christological heresy. The preached word is neither subordinated to the sacraments or elevated above them. Both word and sacrament are mediatory encounters with Christ through which we are born, sustained, and nourished in our faith. Unlike Romanism, Reformed catholicism regards any church as true where the Scripture is rightly preached and the sacraments duly administered. In the end, Reformed catholicism is really more “catholic” than Roman Catholicism. Both high ecclesiology and genuine catholicity constitute the ethos of Reformation Christianity.
Here’s a wonderful article written by Graeme Goldsworthy as a response to a previously written article by Carl Trueman. In this particular exchange between Trueman and Goldsworthy, I think that Goldsworthy’s analysis is spot on. Biblical theology and systematics don’t need to be balanced so much as they need to work together and listen to each other. Goldsworthy’s article can be found here.
“Failure to grasp this truth- largely because the proper study of the Old Testament has been neglected, has aided and abetted one of the most unfortunate reversals in evangelical theology. The core of the gospel, the historical facts of what God did in Christ, is often down-graded today in favor of a more mystical emphasis on the private spiritual experience of the individual. Whereas faith in the gospel is essentially acceptance of, and commitment to, the declaration that God acted in Christ some two thousand years ago on our behalf, saving faith is often portrayed nowadays more as trust in what God is doing in us now. Biblical ideas such as ‘the forgiveness of sins’ or ’salvation’ are interpreted as primarily describing a Christian’s personal experience. But when we allow the whole Bible- Old and New Testaments- to speak to us, we find that those subjective aspects of the Christian life which are undoubtedly important- the new birth, faith, and sanctification- are the fruits of the gospel. This gospel, while still relating to individual people at their point of need, is rooted and grounded in the history of redemption. It is the good news about Jesus, before it can become good news for sinful men and women. Indeed, it is only as the objective (redemptive-historical) facts are grasped that the subjective experience of the individual Christian can be understood.” -Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom
