RSSRe: Rehabilitating TheonomyPeter J. LeithartBil…
Re: Rehabilitating Theonomy
Peter J. Leithart
Bill Chellis raises some large and important issues in his first post on “Rehabilitating Theonomy.” I look forward to future installments.
I am not filing a brief on behalf of what Bill rightly describes as a simplistic form of theonomy. Theonomists have always been more nuanced and complex than their slogans suggest. Rushdoony and North, after all, are well-known for their cinder-block sized books, books that truly merit the venerable label “tome.” But the theonomist slogans are there and, like all slogans, they are as misleading as they are illuminating.
Yet, I have little hope that Bill’s suggestion is going to be taken up by those who describe themselves as theonomists, or those who (like myself) think of ourselves as chastened post-theonomists. Why won’t it work? Natural law theories, of course, come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and styles. But Bill’s citation of Rushdoony is apt: Theonomy in its simplistic and in its more sophisticated forms has always been a polemic against natural law theory, in its Reformed guise as much as in its Thomist guise. An effort to find common ground for theonomists and anti-theonomists in natural law is like trying to find common ground for Republicans and Democrats in the Republican Platform.
Beyond making that point, I only offer questions, which I trust Bill will take up in future posts. My general question is, How are the ethical and political principles of natural law arrived at? More specifically, What, if any, is the role of special revelation in formulating the principles of natural law? Very specifically, What is the natural law argument that supports the specific requirements of the Ten Commandments? What is the natural law argument that supports “You shall have no other gods before Me,” that is, before Yahweh, God of the Exodus? What is the natural law argument for saying, “You shall not bow down to graven images”? What is the natural law argument for saying, “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain”?
And, to conclude for the moment: Is it really possible to see the Ten Commandments as a summary of the natural law without smuggling special revelation in through the back door?
Phil
January 31st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
If this isn’t too far afield. . . .
If expanded (maybe even shifted) the definition of “theonomy,” would it not be easy to use this to describe Knox, Rutherford, and other Westminster Divines in the sense that they were quick to go to Scriptures to justify activities in the saeculum? I’m thinking especially of Knox’s and Rutherford’s biblical side references, as well as the “proof texts” for the WCF 23:3 (1646). They didn’t seem to perceive a need to argue their points from natural law. And at least in Knox’s Trumpet Blast, it doesn’t look like he was arguing intramurally.
Anonymous
February 1st, 2007 at 2:22 am
Dear Dr Leithart,
What is a ‘chastised post theonomist’? Where should I look to find out what ‘chastised post theonomists’ believe. I am a ‘late-comer’into this field, I have read a lot of Rushdoony and North, and not much else on the matter.
Regards,
Tony
dilys
February 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
What is the natural law argument that supports “You shall have no other gods before Me,” that is, before Yahweh, God of the Exodus? What is the natural law argument for saying, “You shall not bow down to graven images”? What is the natural law argument for saying, “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain”?
With no technical knowledge of theonomy, may I suggest that the natural desire for justice, that is, giving due rightly, seems hard-wired? And that the revelation of the “dueness” of worshipping the True God and not bowing down to idols is glorious revealed explanatory Footnote? That is, Natural Law as topic sentence, revelation (especially the ethical) as fleshing out the paragraph with instruction as a “user’s manual” toward regaining the reopened Paradise.
Natural Law as something like low-decibel instinct, revelation constituting directions for the “culture” harmonious to the inner Law, living in harmony with and increasingly susceptible to grace. Nature and nurture in coooperation, to take a parallel from ordinary human development.
Of course, Natural Law is not particularly helpful in winnowing out the competing claims of revelation, thus is only a blunt tool for much of theological discourse. And the scope of the discussion here may be more focused than is assisted by these comments.
Good wishes on the new blog.
Peter
February 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I don’t have problems with talking about natural law as a “low-decibel instinct.” My point was different. If I grant that we have an instinct to give due worship the True God, my question is how we know who that true God is? Can I obey the First Commandment without Him speaking to me directly, in special revelation, and telling me who He is?
Peter
February 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Tony,
A “chastened post-theonomist” is someone who a) recognizes the hermeneutical complexities of applying the Old Testament law to modern societies, but b) still thinks that the church should make the effort to work out these applications.
James Jordan has done the best work in this vein, particularly in his *Law of the Covenant,* available online at freebooks.com. Though he was never a theonomist, Vern Poythress has a similar approach to the Law in his *Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses.*
Peter
February 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I agree with Phil that there is a lot of theonomic-style thinking among seventeenth-century Reformed theologians. I don’t think they would have formulated theonomy as Bahnsen did, but many do show an instinct to go to the Bible for guidance in political matters.
Anonymous
February 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Thank you Dr Leithart, I now know what to call myself, that is, a ‘chastened post theonomist’. I have read Rushdoony, Bahnsen and North, but it is yours and Rev. J Jordan’s writings that I particularly enjoy.
Regards,
Tony
Anonymous
February 13th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Dear Dr. Leithart,
As we seek to learn how the ten commandments are to be applied to civil government, is it likely that we will find that many of the policies theonomist promote for today’s governments may turn out to be proper applications of the ten commandments for modern civil governments even though theonomist are looking to the civil law directly?