False and Foolish: Comparing Christian Nationalism and Theonomy

Christian Nationalism has some, but not all, the self-defeating traits of Theonomy

When Calvin was proposed an idea that seemed seemed like classical Theonomy, what I call Theonomy 1.0, he denounced it quickly and did so with blunt language. Calvin, wrote…

“For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish” (Institutes, 4.20.14)

The reason why I say that what was proposed to Calvin seemed like classical Theonomy is because the doctrine had not yet been developed in any meaningful way. The concept had not really materialized until R.J. Rushdoony published his book, By What Standard, in 1969. Like most theonomists to come after him, Rushdoony tried his best to tie his rejection of the Westminister Standards to a respected theologian who almost, but not quite, held to theonomic beliefs. Since my 2014 debate with Joel McDurmon, I’ve called that being theonomicish.

But, it’s very easy to be theonomicish. In fact, if it took only a general agreement with all but one theonomic tenet, everyone should be a theonomist. Generally, theonomists believe in the rule of God, that there is no moral neutrality, and that God’s Law should inform our judgment as to what good and bad earthly laws are to be judged.

The public relations campaign of Theonomy insisted it meant nothing more than “God’s Law” and the the public relations campaign of Christian Nationalism insist it means little more than “Christian Nation.” This is true in the same way pedophilia means nothing more than “child love.”

However, there’s much more to Theonomy than just valuing “God’s Law.” With only those characteristics, Theonomy could not be distinguished from a general, Reformed (especially Presbyterian) hermeneutical view of Scripture and its application to government.

The distinction of Theonomy 1.0 is more complicated. Departing from the Westminster Confession, Theonomy declares that the tripartite divide of God’s Law into categories of Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial are artificial. This is why Rushdoony claimed that the confession on this point was “rubbish.” And this is also why he left the Presbyterian church and it’s why Bahnsen was fired from Reformed Theological Seminary.

But, not even that is a Theonomic distinction, because Dispensationalist would also believe that the tripartite divide is artificial. So what? What’s really unique about Theonomy, that without it, would make Theonomy something different from Theonomy?

The real distinction of Theonomy is that the Mosaic Judicial Code, or the laws given for the governance of the body-politic of Israel in the Old Testament, are “abidingly valid” (as Bahnsen would say). In other words, the various crimes and the punishments set forth in those crimes, must be applied to “their exhaustive detail” (also as Bahnsen would say). In short, if Moses was told to execute a woman who lied about her virginity on her father’s porch, then we should have a law that executes a woman who lies about her virginity. Although the three theonomic founders (Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North) would disagree on some of the details (for example, Gary North argued that stoning must be the method of execution, but Bahnsen did not), the gist is, the penal code in the Old Testament must be the penal code in all nations today.

There are probably still some Scottish Covenanters out there somewhere, but Theonomy 1.0 died a well-deserved death after my debate with Joel McDurmon (I wrote about that in my e-book, Embers of a Dying Fire).

After that, theonomists slinked back into the bushes like the Homer Simpson meme, adjusted a few things, and rolled out Theonomy 2.0, or “General Equity Theonomy.”

This term, General Equity Theonomy, is taken from Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession, which actually was written to refute theonomicishness. . It reads…

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

In other words, General Equity Theonomy, or Theonomy 2.0, is just basic agreement with the Westminster Confession that there are moral principles found within the Mosaic Judicial Code that are universal and eternal. And that’s true, because this is what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches, that the law is a pedagogue and is still valuable for reproof, teaching, and training in righteousness. But because “General Equity Theonomy” is no different than adhering to the WCF (or the 2nd London Baptist Confession, which mirrors it), the term is largely useless and unhelpful because it provides no distinction at all.

I expressed my annoyance at the term’s development in 2018 with the post, Doug Wilson Please Stop It With the Theonomy Stuff.

When you see many, especially the media, describe Christian Nationalism, they will often use the term ‘Theonomy’ interchangeably and synonymously with another term, Theocracy. These are not the same.

Theocracy is a belief much older (that’s an understatement) than Theonomy, and is simply a masterial rule of God, usually through the church. It is very possible to be theocratic (as many Reformers were) without being Theonomic (as the Reformers were not). But even that assumption, that Christian Nationalism is synonymous with Theocracy, is false. Many, if not most, Christian Nationalist reject the idea that the nation is to be governed through the ecclesia, or church. No, they’re must more magisterial than ecclesiastical.

So then, what are the similarities between Christian Nationalism, Theonomy, and Theocracy? I’ll lay them out for you, then circle-back and explain. But I pray you take note, that these similarities are not largely theological.

1. Both Theonomy 1.0 and Christian Nationalism reject theological gatekeepers.

2. Both Theonomy 1.0 and Christian Nationalism were/are a version of Christian Reconstruction.

3. Both Theonomy 1.0 and Christian Nationalism were/are spaces occupied by younger men.

4. Both Theonomy 1.0 and Christian Nationalism were/are prone to endless “brother wars.”

5. Both Theonomy 1.0 and Christian Nationalism were/are sparked by enthusiasm, but will die with whimpers.

6. Both Theonomy 1.0 and Christian Nationalism required/require strong, central figures.

I’ve been told that six is the devil’s number, but I’m not going higher than that. For the rest of the post, I’ll explain what I mean after this caveat; I genuinely love those who hold to Christian Nationalism and, like Theonomy, I’m so close to holding the position myself, I can smell the bacon and beard balm.

I’d like to say I never thought I’d see the day that Joel McDurmon would abandon his position of Chosen One to lead Theonomy 1.0 into the future, but I repeatedly spoke of “Theonomy’s huge back door” much prior to his Antifa makeover. No theonomic leader I’m aware of, save Rushdoony and Bahnsen (and the Scottish Covenanters) have died an adherent to it. But that said, I hope I’ve proven to my readers by now, ten years after that debate, that I’ve not budged from being the presuppositional, conservative, Covenantal Theologian committed to the General Equity that I was then.

In short, I’m more a Theonomist (2.0) than McDurmon is. Ergo, I really do admire the tenacity, sincerity, and ambition of Christian Nationalists, or as we used to call them, Christian Reconstructionists.

Because I need to feed my chickens, every other day (or so) my full articles are only for paid subscribers. If you appreciate my work, or love my chickens by extension, please consider getting a paid subscription. If you can’t, or won’t, I still give you half the article for free and put a pay-wall in a place that allows you to walk away feeling as though you weren’t left hanging from a cliff.

Look how affable I am.