Planted by Water

As this debate about the role of the Law has continued, I am aware that there may be some people listening in who haven’t come across some of the terms referred to. In explaining them I don’t want to be patronising, but I do want to be as accessible and inclusive as possible.

Theocracy literally means ‘government by God.’ Theonomy means ‘laws of God.’ It seems to be that a theonomist believes that all the laws given to Moses are universal and for all people everywhere and should be applied quite literally to civil government in the world today. They would recognise that the ceremonial laws had been fufilled in Christ but that all moral laws and penal laws (those informing us about punishments for transgressing the moral laws) are still binding today - for everyone!

Reconstructionism is a school of thought among some Christians that by the application of theonomy we can reconstruct a Christian civilisation across our world. They are post-millenial: they believe that Jesus’s return comes after the 1,000 year period of Rev.20 and they see this period as a great golden age of a ‘Christianised’ world. Most people will become Christians and all will have to follow the laws of God. The founding father of this movement is Rushdoony and it includes people like Gary North, James Jordan, David Chilton, Greg Bahnsen and Jay Rogers.

It is also sometimes called Dominionism from an interpretation of Genesis 1:26 which understands ‘taking dominion’ as requiring all societies across the world to come under God’s laws. They see it as something that we are mandated to do before Jesus returns.

There are many people who still believe in the relevance of the Law without regarding themselves as theonomists. My friends at the Jubilee Centre - with whom this recent blog debate began - would certainly distance themselves from theonomists and reconstructionists like Rushdoony. I don’t blame them but you could say that the reconstructionists take this position with regard to the Mosaic Law to its logical - and also, I would argue, ludicrous, bizarre and distrubing - conclusion.

For those who might possibly be interested in following up more, you can get loads of info by just searching ‘Theonomy’ in Google. Hugh Griffiths gave a link in a recent comment for a site where you can get lots of online literature form the Reconstructionists if you are inclined.

I will mention 3 sites:

 Religious Tolerance.org An interesting site from some folks (not necessarily Christians and concerned clearly about tolerance) which gives a slightly sceptical view of Reconstructionism or Dominionism

A brief defence of it by Jay Rogers can be found here

For something far more substantial, and for those who havew few hours to kill, there is an online debate on Theonomy here

I do hope to give a fuller account in the not too distance future of my understanding of the role of the Mosaic Law. In the meantime I have placed a paper that I produced 3 years ago on the subject of holiness which is quite relevant to this discussion. It can be found under Pages on the sidebar for anyone who is interested.

Next week, I will try to explain why I think that the NT’s revelation about the nature of the Kingdom and the principle of Restoration give a far better alternative to reconstructionism.

Tomorrow - something far more brief and light!!