http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Ac...=1&BlogID=1119

Theonomy
Topic: Moscow Diversity Cleansing

In a recent response to Nick Gier, I wrote that all sins are deserving of death. And in the sight of God they are deserving of death, which is why all of us, being sinners, eventually die. But not all crimes should be treated equally by the civil magistrate. Murder and stealing someone's lawn flamingo are both crimes, but it would be horrendous for the magistrate to apply the death penalty in the latter instance.

Factor into this the additional distinction between a sin and a crime. Covetousness is a sin, but ought not to be a crime, because the civil magistrate is not competent to deal with issues of the heart like that. Other sins, like adultery and pedophilia, ought to be crimes as well. A crime is identified in the Bible by the presence of an attendant civil penalty. Lust is a sin, but not a crime. Greed is a sin, but not a crime. Drunkenness in the Bible is a sin, but not a crime. Reasoning by analogy, drunk driving that injures someone else would be a crime. But all this is assuming a utopian biblical society, which does not at present exist.

So in our democratic and secular society, whenever we talk about sins and crimes, if we are thinking carefully, we have to ask ourselves, by what standard? How do we define a sin? How do we define a crime? And because we live in a town where some of our Intoleristas are hyperventilating about the looming prospect of living in a theocratic state set up by old yours truly, I need to spend a few minutes to allay some of their concerns (and perhaps to inflame others).

Theonomy is a word that simply refers to God's law. In the minds of many, this is nothing more than the Christian equivalent of Muslim law, which is (for various reasons) not really an accurate comparison. But over the years I have been asked a number of times if I am a theonomist. To which I have consistently replied, "Oh no, I hate God's law." And the point of that kind of reply is to show that every Christian who believes the Bible is some kind of theonomist. The only debates we Christians have are exegetical: "What does God want from us?" and not "Should we do wantever it is God wants?" Even a muddled Christian who argues for some form of what he calls "principled pluralism" can be asked if he thinks that this principled pluralism is what God wants as well. If not, then why does he want it? And if so, then isn't principled pluralism just another form of theonomy?

Every state is inescapably theocratic. Every state is theonomic. The thing that separates one state from another is the name of the god, the identity of the theos involved. In some societies it is Allah. In others (like ours) it is Demos. In yet others, it is still (nominally) Christ, as in the United Kingdom. Now, as a Christian, when a pollster comes and asks me for my input on which god we should serve, I will tell him. And here is a little hint: it won't be a god in whom I do not believe. If given an opportunity to say something about it, I would prefer the laws of the civil societry in which I live to reflect the standards of God as set forth in the (entire) Bible, and my desire is for Jesus Christ to be honored in the public square as the Son of God and Savior of the world. Of course I think this. I am a Christian.

Now as soon as I say this, the immediate response of panic will be to say, "See! They do want to take over!" No, not at all. If by "taking over" you mean a political mobilization and coercive manipulation of the current system to force our way in, we want nothing to do with that. We do want to persuade, and we want that persuasion to be the opposite of coercive. People think that Jesus Christ will be coercive because the current god is so coercive. Behold the god that is currently the Demos-cratic Theos-Cratic god of our system. His middle name is Coercion, and what we are doing is refusing to worship in that shrine anymore.

Jesus said that when He was lifted up on the cross, all men would stream to Him. He promised that through His death He would draw all men to Himself, and as Christians we believe He is keeping that promise. Quickened by the Spirit of God, the movement of the human race to Jesus Christ is entirely voluntary, and we don't want to herd anyone toward Him through any coercive means whatsoever. The way Christ will come to be honored in the lives of others is through us honoring Christ in our lives. This will be implemented through Christians worshipping God faithfully on the Lord's Day, baptizing our little children and educating them accordingly, and living faithfully in our respective communities as diligent Christian husbands, wives, students, children, mechanics, educators, and so on. The only place where we will make any kind of trouble at all is in our refusal to bow down to the current gods. But in every other respect we will be model citizens, driving faithfully on the right side of the road. Precisely because we will not honor Caesar as god, we will be the best subjects he ever had. Following the model set by the Lord Jesus, the only kind of dominion we want comes through giving ourselves away through sacrificial service in our communities, service that imitates Jesus Christ.

So the only authority we have as Christians is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that didn't happen, you have nothing to worry about.

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 6/1/2005 7:49:22 PM | Print this post

___________________________________

Wonder if this one will be replied to...

[Edited on 6-2-2005 by crhoades]

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

I read that last night. People can reply to it; I probably won't. I have said--and I know you are just having fun with this--most of what I will say on theonomy for a while. Now, if someone starts a thread saying theonomists are heretics or that non-theonomists are antinomians, I will probably jump in the fray.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Christ Church reminds me of the early church---"they shook up the world." I wish all churches were so consciously in the minds of its communities.

openairboy

Funny thing is, most of the Moscow community doesn't even know Christ Kirk. Those that do, know it not for its mercy ministry, nor its evangelism, nor its wotness for Christ, but rather for its oddities: defense of slavery, run ins with casinos, and the like.

I am glad that most churches are not like Christ Kirk.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

And, clearly, their faith is being spoken of around the world.

openairboy

Or, more clearly, their pastor's blog and controversy are being spoken of. When was the last time that anyone mentioned the love that was evident at Christ Kirk? (1 Peter 1:22-25; John 13:35)

3 points

1) Is not speaking controversially shorthand for speaking on topics that matter and remain unsettled?

2)Since it seems that many Christians and non Christians alike have an exceedingly narrow view of love, is the lack of word spreading really much of an indictment?

3)When a person speaks openly in support of theonomy (narrowly or widely construed) would you expect much in the way of stories of love to get much traction?

Hermonta

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Living in a liberal city, I sure do hear about the "love" and "acceptance" found among the attenders of the local United Churches of Christ, PC(USA), Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and "Open-Door" fellowships ... I wouldn't exactly call them solid places of doctrine and teaching!!!

I think in the same conversation that I heard of the "TR" & Greenville's love. I guess it depends on ones perspective, the company you keep, and the theological hobby horses one decides to ride or beat.

In all honesty, I have heard quite a few people reference the love and grace from their personal experiences with Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, & a host of other names commonly associated with this crew.

openairboy

No. And I did not say "speaking controversially" I said "controversy." There is a difference.

I do not have a narrow view of love. I would ask you to cite ONE public example of any conspicuous act of love by Christ Kirk. That is, something not on the absurd (using gospel time to defend the institution of American slavery that has been dead for 150 years), or poking someone in the eye. Does 1 Peter 2:12 mean nothing?

Yes. If it is Biblical, I would. Jesus did not say, they will know (note, he is talking about UNBELIEVERS) you are Christians by your love unless you talk about theonomy. It really is that simple. I don't expect unanimous reaction, but I do expect someone, somewhere, to be able to point to something that a Church does.

The reformed minister to homosexuals in San Francisco, for example, has those in the public that see their concern and good deads, even though the overwhelming of media attention is negative.

What is the difference?

The issue of slavery dies when unbelievers cease to use it as a battering ram against scripture (Didn't say it was a valid battering ram). Do they actually go around poking people in the eyes?

I do not know anything in particular either way about Christ Kirk (I assume that is Wilson's church)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "it getting traction". I doubt you would ever find such in a newspaper and the like.

Fair enough. Do you really think you wouldn't be able to find someone somewhere that could say such?

Alright.

Hermonta

Resisting the bait...

Here, let me chain you down ... :bigsmile:

Proud of you!!

Robin

__________________
Robin
URCNA
Heidelberg, Ursinus, Belgic Confessions; Canons of Dordt
Revelation 14:2

The reason I am not responding is becuase the well is already poisoned. I know Chris started this in fun and Pastor Wilson does make a few good points in his blog (ie, not all crimes are sins and not all sins are crimes. Secondly, not all crimes deserve the death penalty--we get accused of that often enough (mainly from dispensationalists). It usually goes in the form of "So if we're not reformed you're going to stone us?" Exactly where that is found in the BIble I don't know. )

What I found helpful was this:

Drunkeness is a sin.
Drunkeness is not a crime.
Reasoning by analogy if one drives drunk and kills somebody, then it becomes a crime.

Fred: I think I would share (most of) your criticism of Christ Kirk, especially in relation to Mr. Wilson. However I think it is wrong to state that there has been no acts of love from within the congregation. By stating that you are saying something that cannot be proved beyond a shadow of the doubt.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Daniel,

You are absolutely correct. In fact, I would go further and say that there HAVE to be acts of love from and in the congregation, if there are any (and it would seem to me that there are) Christians in the church. To be a Christian means love is evident in one's life. Given Rev. Wilson's profession of Christ, I presume that there are manifold evidences of love in his life as well. I don't want anyone to get the impression that Christ Kirk is not a church.

What I was responding to was the statement that Christ Kirk was some kind of gold standard, "city on a hill," prototype of what a church should be doing.

Keith's original statement:

was what I found ludicrous. I stand by my statement that I would not want churches to be so "in the minds of the community."

From observing Wilson over the years, I would say above all he is a controversialist. Were he not a Christian, I suspect he would still be stirring the pot on other issues. Most of us over the years have known a friend, co-worker or fellow church member who had "issues" with just about everyone and everything. After a while you realize the subject matter may change, but the one constant is that that person is always involved in some sort of controversy. So these individuals end up switching churches and jobs frequently (almost always following some dust up) jumping from one issue to another.

Just thinking out loud... I wonder how Tim Keller and Redeemer can survive in NY City and not have the pagans at the church door with pitch forks? Maybe Wilson and Christ Kirk are much more faithful then Keller and Redeemer? Perhaps Moscow Idaho is home to a lot more left wing loonies then New York city? Or maybe their approach to the culture is fundamentally different?

__________________
_Adam_McMurry,_RE
Grace_PCA_
St._Charles, MO_

In all due respect, Fred, I think this is where a party spirit arises. You have beef with Snoop Doug and the boys, so you read anything potentially positive in light of the fact that they have to be wrong. My statement, taken as is, is not suggesting that Christ Kirk is a 'gold standard', 'city on a hill', or what they are doing is what every church should be doing. It is simply saying that they are shaking up the world like the early Church (no value judgment) and I wish that all churches were so consciously in the minds of the community (again, no value judgment). I made no value statements of gold, purity, or shining hills.

So, I stand by my original statement, I wish all churches were so in the minds of their communities, shaking up the world. Not only that, but into the whole world. The churches in my community are neutered, creating no response. The Elk's club & Masons have a greater presence.

I was even going to preface my statements, b/c I know the Pavlovian response incited by Wilson's name.

openairboy

Not only that, it goes contra the testimony of quite a few people I have personally interacted with. Yes, I have interacted with quite a few people and have personally interacted with Doug Wilson and observed as he demonstrated great patience, love, and gentleness with a person seeking to pick a fight with him.

For the Anti-Wilsonians: this is not a statement that Doug Wilson is right in everything he says, does, or thinks. It is merely an observation contra the testimony of some.

openairboy

Okay. And, for the record, I agree with your criticism of that statement.