Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter  Quote:
But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.
The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.
| Is this a true representation of theonomy in a few lines? |
No, for the above quote is at best a half truth. Although it is true to say that the "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" does teach the modern political validity of the Mosaic judicial laws in exhaustive detail (except where amended by the Lawgiver) and since the statutes providing for the execution of practicing homosexuals caught in the act and the execution of rebellious children (usually understood as adult children guilty of repeated criminal acts) have not been so amended (whether explicitly or implicitly), all followers of Bahnsen's version of "the ethical perspective of" CR will find that such laws remain required today.
But to say that donations to such churches subsidize hatred is a charge that is not necessarily true. There are two reasons why this charge must be rejected. First, the term "hatred" is unqualified. In the context of his argument listing Wright's unsupportable accusations that stimulate hatred for the US governement and those who serve in it, Gerson's point could be read as implying that "theonomic" churches likewise preach that the government is guilty of monstrous crimes (and do so without proof) to stimulate personal hatred for those individuals who disagree with the Recon ethical perspective and such a conclusion is almost certainly wrong when applied to the majority of "theonomic" churches.
Although some Recon's (e.g. North) have strong feelings about the contemporary abuse contemporary politicians have done to the powers constitutionally granted to the US federal government, and the strength of their feelings towards the changes could perhaps fairly be described as "hatred", members of most "theonomic" churches, AFAIK, are not taught from their pulpits by inflammatory rhetoric unsupported by proof that their government has engaged in "the most montstrous crime in history".
The most I think that could be fairly said by outsiders, lacking specific evidence to the contrary which Gerson does not provide, is that a given "theonomic" preacher might possibly descend to Wright's level of invective. But, and this is the second reason for rejecting Gerson's charge, even if one "theonomic" preacher did so, that is would not necessarily mean that the entire school of thought would do likewise.