Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
Last edited by Dr. Jack Bauer : June 2nd 2007 at 07:01 AM
.
Frequently asked questions on Theonomy.
The best way to explain Theonomy is is to spell it out in its barest most basic form, and then to subject that explanation to a whole bunch of frequently (and not so frequently) asked questions, so that the theonomists can, by answering them, spell out the nuances of his position. So here goes. It’s presented as a dialogue between Theo (a Theonomist) and Libby.
This conversation is going to appear in daily digests, and each digest will deal with one main issue.
Libby: What is Theonomy?
Theo: Very basically, Theonomy is the view that it is right to obey God’s law. It comes from the Greek terms theos (“God”) and nomos (“law”). It shouldn’t be a freakish or strange word, as it has the same construction as several other English words. “Heteronomy” refers to the law or rule of an outside authority, “autonomy” refers to the law or rule of self, and likewise “Theonomy” refers to the law of God.
More specifically, Theonomy is a term used in Christian literature to refer to a school of thought in Christian ethics. Probably the most influential writer in this school of thought is the late Greg L. Bahnsen (and this in no way suggests that Theonomic ideas are themselves recent ideas – indeed Theonomists claim they are not). In a Christian context, which is the context of this thread, Theonomy is the view that the law of Scripture is the law that should govern our lives, and that where, according to Scripture, that law has political and legal ramifications, those laws should be applied in law and politics today. So the way God’s law should be followed, then, is not exclusively about public law in society (in fact the most important parts of it are not), but it does encompass this type of law.
Libby: OK, can you give some examples of what Theonomy would involve
T: Well, for example, we should love the Lord with all our heart, we should not bear a grudge against our neighbour, we should help the needy, and also on a public level, people who steal should be forced to make restitution, people who murder should be put to death, people who engage in sodomy should be-
L: Wait, wait, I don’t like what I think you’re about to say! You mean that in addition to the personal pursuit of holiness – which all of us Christians would say is a good thing – we should set up some sort of theocratic dictatorship?
T: OK, this conversation quickly took a turn for the worse! Can you please humour me here: Let’s not talk about “setting up” anything, since actually political processes for forming laws just don’t allow us to scrap society and “set up” a new one. Theonomy is concerned with what laws ought to be like, not about the method of changing laws, OK? We can talk about that at length some time, but for now I’d like to stick to the moral claim that this is what our laws should be like.
L: Sure, OK, let’s stick to that topic then. So you mean that we should set- I mean, you think that our system of laws should be a theocratic dictatorship?
T: OK, well at least I think you’re framing the question properly. I hope you won’t object to a little Socratic method here. Can you tell me what you mean by “dictatorship”? Surely you don’t just mean a country where you have to obey the law, right?
L: No. If that were the case, any nation with laws would be a dictatorship.
T: Right, so what did you mean? I’m just asking to make sure you’re offering an objection, and not just using reactionary language to make it sound like you’re offering an objection.
L: No, it’s a real objection. By “dictatorship” I mean a ruthless government that hands out unjust punishments for offences that don’t really deserve punishment at all.
T: Well then no, I’m not saying that the government should punish acts that don’t deserve it. Only acts that deserve punishment should be punished.
L: But that’s what any advocate of a dictatorship would say! It’s not like they’re going to say that the acts they would criminalise don’t deserve to be criminalised!
T: Well, since an advocate of dictatorship would say that, and an advocate of a non-dictatorship would also say that – right?
L: *nods*
T: - maybe you’ll need to come up with another way of testing whether or not a system of law amounts to a dictatorship.
L: Hmmm, OK, fair comment. A dictatorship is a system of law that is totalitarian – it governs every single facet of life and it seeks to control all of our behaviour.
T: OK, well that’s certainly a lot clearer. In that case, Theonomy is definitely not a dictatorship.
L: But wait a second, you were about to advocate laws against sodomy, weren’t you?
T: Yup. But that’s one act, hardly all of life.
L: But aren’t you saying that all acts that the Bible calls sins should be punished?
T: All sins are punishable by God, sure. But remember, I’m only saying that the laws that the Bible says are civil laws, applicable to the state, should be treated as – well, laws applicable to the state.
L: OK, so give me some examples of things that are sins but which you don’t think should be against the law of the land?
T: Sure, OK, there are plenty: Greed, lust, being an arrogant jerk, boasting, pride, lying – in general anyway, unless you’re bearing false witness or defrauding somebody – failing to love your neighbour as yourself, not loving God enough or being sorry for your sins – do you want me to keep going?
L: Ah, no. OK, point taken. But surely what you’re advocating is a dictatorship in some broad sense of the word.
T: How can there be a “broad” sense of being a dictatorship? What does that even mean?
L: Well it means having laws that are just so… so… wrong! I mean, you’d have to punish people for stuff like adultery! We’d have to execute people for kidnapping. Execute them! People would be able to sell themselves as slaves to work off debts. Slaves, Theo! This is really facist sounding!
T: So you mean that any of us with good moral sense will look at these laws and just see that they’re not right?
L: Well, yes! Isn’t that just obvious to you?
T: You know what, you’re right. It is. Kinda like how we look at the sermon on the mount and just intuitively see that Jesus Christ was a moral retard?
L: WHAT??? Theo, how can you say that? You’re talking about Jesus! How dare you presume to know better than the Son of God for crying out loud?
T: Oh it’s easy, apparently. You seem to have no problem presuming to know better than His Father.
…. Long pause ….
L: dang
T: Libby, you’re a Christian, right?
L: Of course I am, you know that.
T: Yes I do. Libby, I want to suggest that it’s wrong to just assume that we can intuitively know whether or not commands that God gave are moral or not. I know that God gave us a conscience to tell us right from wrong, but we’re also sinners. We’re influenced and motivated in so many ways by so many things. The appropriate attitude for us to take to God’s law is not to assume that we know better.
I’m very happy to address your questions about Theonomy, but I want us to be very clear about one thing. The question before us is what the Bible says about the question of God’s law. I am not interested in debating whether or not God’s commandments are right or just. Christian ethics is about asking what God wants of us. It leaves no room for asking whether or not He should want it. Are you ready?
L: Theo, that’s not what I was trying to do. Well… It’s not what I wanted to be doing anyway. Of course I’m ready.
T: Alright, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, we can get into this.
L: Great! My first question is….
TO BE CONTINUED
So what have we learned here?
"Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
The article is written by one who professes to be a critic of theonomy, yet is not a critique as such. Rather it is by and large descriptive, attempting to delineate as objectively and neutrally as possible what precisely the movement believes and hopes to acheive, and why it does so. It is predominantly a philosophical and sociological account of theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism that seeks to lay out the essential tenets of what it means to be a theonomist. Duncan's article quotes extensively from the late "fathers" of theonomy and reconstructionism, Rushdoony and Bahnsen, as well as contemporary authors such as Gary North, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Well worth a look, IMO.
If there is anything I’ve learned from both conservatives and liberals, it’s that we can have all the “right” answers and still be mean. And when you’re mean, it’s hard for people to listen to, much less desire, your truth.
Rushdoony is a name that I've seen a number of anti-Christian sources throw out, particularly those who want to tar Creationists with Theocratic extremists.
Helpful to see him in a (sort of) context, as I'd never heard of him before.
Rushdoony is a name that I've seen a number of anti-Christian sources throw out, particularly those who want to tar Creationists with Theocratic extremists.
Helpful to see him in a (sort of) context, as I'd never heard of him before.
J
Rushdoony is also famous for his emphasis on home schooling. The strong resurgence of homeschooling in the USA in the last 3 decades can be traced in large part to his influence. As I understand it, he basically wanted Christians to keep their kids out of public schools until they could raise up a generation of national leaders who would "reconstruct" (i.e."Christianize") the USA.
Wikipedia has a pretty good overview of Rushdoony's life and work, though whoever edited the current version of the wiki does link Rushdoony (rightly or not) with the word that has become a lightning rod of controversy, "theocracy." I don't know if that label is justified or not, but there are scads of useful links and quotes from Rushdoony's books there.
If there is anything I’ve learned from both conservatives and liberals, it’s that we can have all the “right” answers and still be mean. And when you’re mean, it’s hard for people to listen to, much less desire, your truth.
I would be most content if my children grew up to be the kind of
people who think decorating consists mostly of building enough bookshelves.--Anna Quindlen
The article is written by one who professes to be a critic of theonomy, yet is not a critique as such. Rather it is by and large descriptive, attempting to delineate as objectively and neutrally as possible what precisely the movement believes and hopes to acheive, and why it does so. It is predominantly a philosophical and sociological account of theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism that seeks to lay out the essential tenets of what it means to be a theonomist. Duncan's article quotes extensively from the late "fathers" of theonomy and reconstructionism, Rushdoony and Bahnsen, as well as contemporary authors such as Gary North, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Well worth a look, IMO.
That article, unfortunately, conflates the terms "theonomy" and "reconstructionism." They are not the same thing, and the confusion caused by doing this really does make the issue that much murkier.
"Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
I'm not sure if you want discussion, or if you are just setting out what theonomy means to you.
I'll assume the former and you can respond if you wish. Here are four more questioners, all of whom agree with the fundamental principle of theonomy, that the world would be a better place if we all obeyed God's laws (apart from Mary of course who has a different view).
John (a liberal Christian): I think that's great! We should start by instituting a form of socialism! Let's begin by doubling taxation on the rich and dramatically increasing benefits paid to poor people. That's what Jesus spoke about, certainly.
Mohammed (a fundamentalist Muslim): I think that's great! We should start by instituting Sharia law, which forbids immodest dress, education of women and drinking alcohol, among many other things. That's what Allah told the Prophet Mohammed (peace be unto him), certainly.
Ajit (a Hindu): I think that's great! We should start by forbidding the eating of beef! That is what Ganesha has commanded, certainly.
Mary (an atheist): I think that's great! I don't believe in God or that the Bible has any authority today, but I do believe that morals have been programmed in us by evolution. Let's start by .... (well, who knows where this one would go).
OK, those are stereotyped, and are probably somewhat inaccurate, but I hope they serve to make a point. Not everyone agrees on what "god's law" is. Of course it's the law as set out in the Bible, I hear you reply? Even granting that, it's difficult to get half a dozen Christians together who all agree on the correct interpretation of the Bible.
So, unless you propose to simply impose Biblical laws as understood by one section of Christianity on everyone (and I seem to remember you favor a more democratic approach) then you will have to persuade all these people (1) that the Bible contains the exact wishes of God in this respect and (2) that your interpretation of what the Bible says is correct. Of course, with the atheist you're going to have to start one step back and convince her that God exists in the first place.
Go for it.
(fwiw, I agree that a society ruled by God's laws is the ideal state. I believe that's what Jesus was referring to when he talked about "the kingdom of God". Of course, I can't believe that Jesus would have supported the execution of homosexuals .... )
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)
I think, along aliens lines, it would be hard for a tehonomic government not to become a dictatorship of the majority, as it is a government by God for man. What God thinks, more accurately what the majority thinks God thinks, would have to belaw. There would not be a baseline, areligious "bill of rights" that everyone could agree upon. Thats where there would be the dictatorship.
There is also the authoritarian problem. Any government that does not allow free speech, which a theonomic government could not as at the very least one could not "slander" God, or prohibit the free practice of religion, like promoting Arianism or Islam, would fall in that category for me. I think most Twebbers realize, at this point, that theonomist are not all crazy evil moonbats, but I don't think most would want to liveunder such a government. Someof us would be forced to be violently oppossed to one, (i.e. me). Its not a personal thing, but an ideological one.
I think, along aliens lines, it would be hard for a tehonomic government not to become a dictatorship of the majority, as it is a government by God for man. What God thinks, more accurately what the majority thinks God thinks, would have to belaw. There would not be a baseline, areligious "bill of rights" that everyone could agree upon. Thats where there would be the dictatorship.
There is also the authoritarian problem. Any government that does not allow free speech, which a theonomic government could not as at the very least one could not "slander" God, or prohibit the free practice of religion, like promoting Arianism or Islam, would fall in that category for me. I think most Twebbers realize, at this point, that theonomist are not all crazy evil moonbats, but I don't think most would want to liveunder such a government. Someof us would be forced to be violently oppossed to one, (i.e. me). Its not a personal thing, but an ideological one.
I understand that you think Theonomy is authoritarian and incompatible with a rights based system. This is not the thread to have that debate.
"Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
I'm not sure if you want discussion, or if you are just setting out what theonomy means to you.
I'm setting out what it is.
I'll assume the former and you can respond if you wish. Here are four more questioners, all of whom agree with the fundamental principle of theonomy, that the world would be a better place if we all obeyed God's laws (apart from Mary of course who has a different view).
John (a liberal Christian): I think that's great! We should start by instituting a form of socialism! Let's begin by doubling taxation on the rich and dramatically increasing benefits paid to poor people. That's what Jesus spoke about, certainly.
Mohammed (a fundamentalist Muslim): I think that's great! We should start by instituting Sharia law, which forbids immodest dress, education of women and drinking alcohol, among many other things. That's what Allah told the Prophet Mohammed (peace be unto him), certainly.
Ajit (a Hindu): I think that's great! We should start by forbidding the eating of beef! That is what Ganesha has commanded, certainly.
Mary (an atheist): I think that's great! I don't believe in God or that the Bible has any authority today, but I do believe that morals have been programmed in us by evolution. Let's start by .... (well, who knows where this one would go).
OK, those are stereotyped, and are probably somewhat inaccurate, but I hope they serve to make a point. Not everyone agrees on what "god's law" is. Of course it's the law as set out in the Bible, I hear you reply? Even granting that, it's difficult to get half a dozen Christians together who all agree on the correct interpretation of the Bible.
So, unless you propose to simply impose Biblical laws as understood by one section of Christianity on everyone (and I seem to remember you favor a more democratic approach) then you will have to persuade all these people (1) that the Bible contains the exact wishes of God in this respect and (2) that your interpretation of what the Bible says is correct. Of course, with the atheist you're going to have to start one step back and convince her that God exists in the first place.
This is an argument for moral skepticism.
Person 1: "I think we should have justice"
Person 2: "Great, that mans socialism"
Person 3: "Great, that means facism."
etc.
Moral disagreement does not automatically lead to moral nihilism or judicial relativism.
In any case, theonomy hasn;t been spelt out yet, so I'll just co ntunue this thread on it's stated purpose as spelt out in post #1. The second installment will be up today (NZ time).
"Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
I understand that you think Theonomy is authoritarian and incompatible with a rights based system. This is not the thread to have that debate.
You totally missed my point in that other thread. My crummy formatting surely played into that, but the crux of my point is there are things, regardless of rational, Americans in particular are going to find things authoritarian and wrong about a theonomic government. I pointed out the two biggies. I recognize you want acceptance, but those are very high hurdles.
An FAQ should ideally be concise and to the point. I had high hopes judging from the thread title that you were compiling the definitive FAQ on theonomy. I didn't learn much from the OP. I guess I misunderstood the purpose of this thread.
Furay, that's entirely possible. It might be that you thought everything would be contained in the OP. But actually if you read the OP, you'll see that the questions and answers are being presented as a dialogue of - well, questions and answers, and that it's a daily digest.
By "daily digest" I mean that it is going to be presented in installments. The first post won't contain everything, but one day at a time as the "digests" are added, the position under consideration will be fleshed out. I do understand the impulsive desire of a lot of evangelicals (and perhaps some nonevaneglicals) to have everything summed up in a tiny bullet point list of verses or statements, but that was never the intent of this thread, it was always going to be presented as a dialogue (rather like a Socratic dialogue) in a daily digest format. I apologise if this was not explained well.
Ryokan, again, I really think you've misunderstood the purpose of this thread. Doubtless I am at fault for being such a horrible communicator and not explaining the purpose of the thread in the OP.
"Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
Furay, that's entirely possible. It might be that you thought everything would be contained in the OP. But actually if you read the OP, you'll see that the questions and answers are being presented as a dialogue of - well, questions and answers, and that it's a daily digest.
By "daily digest" I mean that it is going to be presented in installments. The first post won't contain everything, but one day at a time as the "digests" are added, the position under consideration will be fleshed out. I do understand the impulsive desire of a lot of evangelicals (and perhaps some nonevaneglicals) to have everything summed up in a tiny bullet point list of verses or statements, but that was never the intent of this thread, it was always going to be presented as a dialogue (rather like a Socratic dialogue) in a daily digest format. I apologise if this was not explained well.
Ryokan, again, I really think you've misunderstood the purpose of this thread. Doubtless I am at fault for being such a horrible communicator and not explaining the purpose of the thread in the OP.
Maybe, if you want to put out jsut an explanatory dialogue, why not write one of those essay thingy's we have, and then through up a comments page? It could be ninja like!
)
