Veni Quid Veniat

     What is theonomy? Given its limited circulation, the odds are good that many readers have not heard of theonomy, and even those who have may not be particularly familiar with it. Literally, theonomy means "God's law." Recent use of the word is derived in large part from the ideas of Rousas John Rushdoony , often described as the father of the modern Christian homeschooling movement as well as of theonomy. Simply stated, theonomy is the contention that the Old Testament law ought to be applied to modern society. What such an application would look like is open to debate - Rushdoony generally advocated strict adherence to the applications of the law; others who followed him have favored a system which utilizes universal principles more than specific applications - but what remains constant among theonomists is that God's standard of morality has not changed since He gave it. What was wrong then is still wrong now.

    In brief, the simplest case for theonomy is that civil government must be conducted according to some principles. Someone must determine what to punish and what to reward; if we are imperfect, why not look to God? The Old Testament is no longer binding for salvation, but what was wrong then has not become right with time. God did not change. If a particular activity was condemned in the moral or civil portions of the Mosaic Law, the only of example of a civil law given directly by God that we have, it does not seem unreasonable to condemn the same activity in our civil law. By the same token, if God established a specific penalty for a crime, it behooves us to, at the very least, model our penalties after His (here there is some disagreement among theonomists, as some contend that we ought to enact the same penalties, a group which would include Rushdoony himself, whereas others argue that the penalties, unlike morality, were specific to the time and serve as a model, not as a strict rule. Important as it may be, that issue is not the primary focus of this discussion).

For it is written in the Law of Moses, “you shall not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

The apostle extracts and applies the universal principle behind the law, which reaches beyond the specific application of the law. God, as the apostle points out, is concerned with more than oxen. This concept of a specific application combined with a universal principle, the former specific to a time, the later still binding, is not a new idea, it is simply the consistent application of 2 Timothy 3:16 to the entire Bible, not just the New Testament. The Old Testament remains relevant today, as it is still "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

     It should be obvious by now that theonomy is, at the very least, a viable option for government. That it is in reality the only option for civil government is less obvious, but equally true. Without some objective standard to tie laws to our laws must be arbitrary and often capricious. Consider our age of consent laws. As it stands now, the age of consent varies from state to state, and the laws themselves are open to mocking from a number of directions. For example, a difference of one day in the age of either party could make an act perfectly acceptable in the sight of the law or a felony. The fact is, age of consent laws are exactly what the law always will be without an objective standard: arbitrary and capricious. Recognizing this fact, many people are currently attempting to repeal, or at least de-claw, age of consent laws. Why, after all, should we respect a law which is obviously ridiculous? On the other hand, if we accept God's standard that intercourse is only ever acceptable between married partners, the discussion becomes mute, and we have no need to place any arbitrary limit on immoral behavior. In other words, because we have refused God's standard yet still must take a stand - I think the reader can readily imagine the sort of disgusting displays which would follow the repeal of age of consent laws - all that remains is to make a stand on indefensible ground, ground which will inevitably be lost. By abandoning the high ground we have conceded the entire battle.

     Nor is this phenomenon limited to age of consent laws. Again and again, good people recognize that they must take a stand, but in the name of politics, or moderation, or sensitivity they reject the standard God set, choosing instead to stand on the slippery slope of human reason. They compromise, in laws, in political candidates, in their personal lives, and by doing so they lose before they even begin. God's standard is the only sure place to stand. The fact that God's standard when it comes to intercourse happened to be the only place where a logical defense could be made against creeping perversion is not a quirk, it is a reflection of a basic fact. That is, that we do not serve a capricious God and His laws are not arbitrary. If we abandon them we have abandoned the best option, both morally and logically, and when we do so we're not fighting to win anymore, we're fighting to surrender a little bit later.

     Rather than compromising, as Christians our goal should be to stand as firmly as human frailty allows precisely on God's truth and nowhere else. As we have seen, our choice isn't between God's standard in civil government and some other standard, it is between God's standard and no standard at all. In reality, we can either be theonomists or the rearguard in a losing battle with anarchy; there is no other option. Our laws have only survived as long as they have because they were based on Biblical principles, as we forget those principles our laws fall, one by one. Unless and until we return to those Biblical principles - and not to some halfway point which is agreeable to those who despise the Bible or a comfortable stance based on the vestigial truths still traditionally accepted - our laws will continue to fall. Theonomy is not a model of just civil government, it is the only model for just civil government.