For several years, this writer has been troubled by an antinomian streak in
the theonomic movement. While many antagonists have falsely branded the
movement as "legalistic," I am convinced that there is actually a
more serious problem in the other direction.
"What, you can't be serious?" some may respond. "How can you
accuse reconstructionists of an antinomian tendency, when their expressed
purposes continually support the law of God?"
Well, the matter is not quite that simple. It's true that the
reconstructionist movement accurately proclaims many precepts from God's law.
Notably, the Word of God does condemn abortion, homosexuality,
institutionalized theft by government taxation, etc. Further, the
reconstructionist emphasis on Christian education is quite timely.
Still these theonomic positions share a common characteristic. They are all directed
against practices in contemporary culture which are popularly denounced by the
larger "evangelical" community as a whole. As such, they gain much
attention. Further, these concerns are rooted in the second table of the law
the last six commandments which deal principally with a man's duty toward other
men.
So what's wrong with this emphasis? Nothing, per se, unless it becomes the
occasion for neglecting other vital parts of God's law. And that is my fear,
brethren. I believe reconstructionists have adopted a selective use of the law.
In other words, many theonomists exalt popular second-table issues, doing
injustice to first-table matters which contain man's preeminent duties toward
God.
The purpose of this article, then, is to note several areas where
theonomists seem to be neglecting the law. To the extent that these criticisms
are valid, I appeal to these brethren to give heed to the whole counsel of
God's Word, and repent where there have been sins of omission.
Idolatry is a polluted stream from which flows both individual condemnation
and the decay of society as a whole. At the head of the ten commandments stands
the exclusive claim of the Lord: "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me" (Ex. 20:3).
This command has an individual focus, for every man is summoned to
repentance and faith in the living God. The command also has a corporate
aspect, requiring God's people to guard against outside influences which
undermine the purity of the faith. For this reason, the Lord forbade the
Israelites to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. "Thou
shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in
thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it
will surely be a snare unto thee" (Ex. 23:31-33; cf. Ex. 34:13-15; Judges
2:2).
The New Testament counterpart to the first commandment is found in the
exclusive claims of Christ Jesus: "Neither is there salvation in any
other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we
must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Thus, the lordship of Christ is preached with
no apologies, and it provides the impetus behind the great commission:
"All power [authority] is given
unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore...." (Matthew 28:18-19).
The great commission requires making disciples of all the nations,
"teaching them to observe all things"
commanded by Christ (Matt. 28:20). A summary of the gospel commission is also
provided in Luke 24:47, declaring "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name
among all nations."
Therefore, the gospel is not merely a truncated message containing five easy
steps to salvation. Neither is the gospel faithfully proclaimed if repentance
is omitted, or if the hearers are allowed to retain idolatrous worship.
The apostle Paul enjoins Christians to be separate from corrupting
influences (2 Cor. 6:11-18); and he calls down the curses of God upon any who
pervert the purity of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Thus, Paul excludes the
Judaizers from the Christian community, even though the Judaizers profess faith
in Jesus, and in spite of the fact that the Judaizers might make nice allies
against the statist practices of imperialist Rome. (Let us also remember that
the Roman government tolerated abortion, infanticide, homosexuality and
idolatry. Although Paul denounced these sins, he never compromised the purity
of the gospel in efforts to counteract such rampant lawlessness.)
These biblical concepts were clearly understood during the Protestant
Reformation. The Reformers sought to eradicate the false religion of Rome, and
disseminate the pure gospel throughout the world. Yet, they also guarded
against the insidious influences of the Anabaptists. It was a religious war on
many fronts; and the Reformers saw the necessity of maintaining the purity of
the gospel, in spite of concurrent struggles against Papists, Anabaptists, and
blatant infidels.
But today, we have a new breed of Reformer. There are theonomists who seem
bent on patronizing Papists and Charismatics (the modern Anabaptists), while
pursuing an agenda of social and political reconstruction.
The question of common ground is bound to arise. For example, pro-life
Protestants often find themselves together with Roman Catholics in opposition
to abortion. So a dilemma is created. What principles should govern our
dealings with Roman Catholics who share our opposition to abortion,
homosexuality, etc.?
In December 1983, an article appeared in the Chalcedon Report entitled, "On What Common Ground Do We
Stand?" by Jean-Marc Berthoud. "Whilst differences should be frankly
and lucidly recognized, so as to avoid all confusion," he says,
"points of common agreement should be clearly and carefully defined."
And what points of common ground are advocated? The author gives us a list
of "minimal points" of agreement which includes the following remark:
"The doctrinal formulations of the Seven Oecumenical Councils, Nicea
(325), Constantinople I (431), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople
II (553), Constantinople III (680-681) and Nicea II (787) should all be
accepted without mental reservation."
This proposal is preposterous. Some of those later councils have never met
even general acceptance among Protestants. The Second Nicene Council, for
example, ratified the use of icons, relics, and adoration of the saints. At
best, Mr. Bethoud's remarks bespeak naiveté and grievous insensitivity to
crucial matters pertaining to purity of worship.
In a related vein, Pastor Joe Morecraft described his vision for a
reconstructed America. Speaking to Bill Moyers, on the t.v. program, "God
and Politics," Morecraft made the following statement: "Everybody's
going to benefit. Whether they're Christians, whether they're Protestant Christians
or Catholic Christians or Jews or whatever they be, everybody will benefit from
having a Christian culture. Where Christian principles reign supreme, where
people in places of leadership recognize the supremacy of God, there will be
more freedom, more prosperity, more security for every law-abiding
American." ("God and Politics: On Earth as It Is in Heaven,"
P.B.S., 23 December 1987.)
Is this the millennial kingdom? Are we, indeed, headed for a society where
truth and error dwell side by side in wondrous harmony and prosperity? By
"Catholic Christians," does he mean those in the Romish communion
persons who, by scriptural definitions, are classed as lawless idolators? If
so, then what is meant by the term "law-abiding"?
Meanwhile, great appeals are directed toward the Charismatics. Charismatics
exist in large numbers, possess an enormous media presence (radio and t.v.) and
have much money to contribute to popular causes.
One prominent theonomist has advocated a strategy of cooperation, using the
illustration of a three-legged stool, in which each leg of the stool provides
essential support for the whole. In order to pursue the reconstruction of
America, he sees the three legs of the stool to be: (1) the theological
leadership of Presbyterians; (2) the media of the Charismatics; (3) the large
numbers of the Baptists.
Of course, it is hard to get a firm fix on Charismatics, since the
Charismatic movement extends beyond structured confessional denominations. Yet
it is safe to assert that they generally do not preach the gospel of God's
sovereign grace. The doctrine of free-will (the Pelagian heresy) is rampant
among Charismatics.
Further, Charismatic views on continuing revelation undermine the Protestant
principle of sola scriptura. This is a foundational error.
Some Charismatics advocate a prosperity gospel which says, in effect, Christ
died to make you rich. Their more crass practitioners resort to sensational
claims of miraculous healings; others peddle a variety of religious artifacts,
and we wouldn't be surprised to see scripture toothbrushes in their autumn
catalog of merchandise.
Therefore, we are not merely a little disconcerted to read Pastor Morecraft
assert: "This is what is making the Christian Reconstructionist Movement
so influential.... God is mixing the LIGHT of the Reformed Faith with the HEAT
of the Charismatic Movement" (Counsel of Chalcedon, Dec. 1987, p. 7).
Now, I am not saying we should isolate ourselves from all contacts with
Roman Catholics and Charismatics. Indeed, our encounters with these people are
a real test of our faithfulness to the great commission. We should call them to
repentance; to renounce their affiliation with Rome; to forsake their false
worship.
Will we seek to press the claims of the true gospel, or will we be content
with a theological détente, in order to forge an alliance for social and
political aims? It is one thing to seek an audience in order to present the
truth in its fulness; it is quite another to make a truce with errorists.
Roman Catholicism has not changed. It is a wicked ecclesiastical system
which substitutes idolatrous worship and human merit for the true gospel of
Christ.
Similarly, many Charismatics assert a free-will gospel and subjective
worship in the place of biblical truth. It is a false religion. The Reformers
uniformly maintained that advocates of free-will hold to a soul-destroying
error.
Is God honored when such crucial differences are minimized for the sake of a
political agenda? Further, it will be a tragedy if the trustees of the true
gospel remain mute concerning those who murder the soul (such as Papists),
while exerting so much effort against those who kill the body (i.e.,
abortionists).
Moreover, historic post-millennialism linked the progress of Christ's kingdom
to the spread of the gospel. But today, many reconstructionists equate kingdom
growth with the diffusion of a social and political agenda throughout
professing Christendom. Formerly, the kingdom was progressing toward an era of
the universal spread of the gospel. Now, it seems destined to become an
ecumenical haven for Papists, Anabaptists, and pandering Protestants alike.
Otherwise, how can we account for the failure to confront the Romish and
Charismatic heresies head-on?
This negligence contravenes both the first commandment and the command of
Christ in the great commission. Therefore, it is nothing short of bald
antinomianism.
This lawlessness does not stop with a tolerance of false religion. It also
includes laxity toward corruption of worship: second commandment issues.
Whereas the first commandment prohibits false gods and false religions, the
second commandment tells us how God is
to be worshipped. The commandment does so in a negative manner, by forbidding
the worship of God through means of human invention.
The second commandment does not simply forbid the construction of idols to
false gods; for in that case it would merely be a repetition of the first
commandment. Rather, the second commandment guards against attempts to
represent or worship the true God by false means. It forbids man-made
"aids to worship"; it enjoins the proper worship of God as appointed
in his Word. This is the historic Reformed understanding of the command. As the
Westminster Larger Catechism (#109)
states: "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,
counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship
not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation
of God, of all or of any of the three persons ... corrupting the worship of
God, adding to it, or taking from it...." (Cf. Heidelberg
Catechism, #s 96-98.) This doctrine is
often referred to as the regulative principle of worship.
Various theonomists have undermined the regulative principle. The Tyler
reconstructionists repudiated it outright in the early 1980s. The most visible
expression of their hostility to the regulative principle came in a series of
articles published in the Geneva Papers,
a monthly newsletter issued by the Tylerites. In issues #21 #29, James Jordan
openly denounced the regulative principle in order to pave the way for his
advocacy of Anglo-Catholic and Lutheran conceptions of worship, including a
defense of clerical attire, the sign of the cross, an ecclesiastical year,
public healing services, etc.
Although Mr. Jordan's remarks may represent the most extreme among the
theonomists, other reconstructionists have also backed off from the regulative
principle. For example, several years ago, I had a conversation with a
prominent theonomist who told me he thought the position of Calvin (and the Westminster
Confession) was wrong with respect to
pictorial representations of Jesus. Of course Calvin and the Confession classify "pictures of Jesus" among the
graven images prohibited by the second commandment. Although this man was a
minister in a denomination which publicly affirms the Westminster
Confession, he was willing to defend the
didactic use of "pictures of Jesus."
But private conversations alone are not the only indication of problems in
this area. A reconstructionist book on God and Government sports a graven image on the cover. And recent
issues of the Chalcedon Report
have contained several artistic renderings of Christ, also in violation of the
second commandment (see the January, Feb., and Mar. 1988 issues).
The regulative principle is also disregarded by the unbridled subjectivism
of the Charismatic movement, where private expression is substituted for
worship by God's appointment. Thus, we are troubled to read Pastor Morecraft's
remark, "I particularly pray that Calvinists and charismatics will
influence each other in their doctrines of worship. They need our regulative
principle of worship and we need their joyous involvement of the total person,
spiritually, emotionally, and physically in the worship of God" (Counsel
of Chalcedon, Dec. 1987, p. 7).
What should we make of a statement like this? It is theological
double-speak. To blend Reformed light and Charismatic heat is a prescription
for "strange fire" indeed. We don't need Charismatic influences on
our worship. If our worship is lacking, it is precisely because we are not
fully governed by God's Word which speaks to the whole man. In short, we need
more commitment to the regulative
principle among Reformed churches.
Doubtless, the Charismatics do need
our regulative principle. But if they ever do adopt the Reformed regulative
principle, it will eliminate nearly everything distinctive within Charismatic
worship: the blithering nonsense, falsely called speaking in tongues; the
self-aggrandizing showmanship of Charismatic preachers; the false doctrines;
and musical entertainment which is more suited to a discothèque.
Since I have already spoken of the evils of the Charismatic movement above,
I shall not dwell on it again here, except to underscore that the movement
undermines the law of God on several counts. Thus, patronizing attitudes toward
the Charismatic movement are a form of antinomianism aiding and abetting
lawlessness.
One other first-table issue merits attention: the keeping of the sabbath. In
this realm, theonomists again present us with troublesome inconsistencies.
Several years ago, a theonomic pastor told me he hoped the sabbath would not
become a divisive issue among reconstructionists. It seems some of the brethren
were especially fond of watching those football games on Sunday afternoon.
Later, I perused Gary North's fire-breathing essay on "The Economics of
Sabbath-Keeping." Now here's a man who tells you plainly what he thinks
about sabbatarianism. While presenting some valid questions, North resorts to
caricature, in order to ridicule sabbatarianism and discredit the position of
the Westminster Confession. (See
"The Economics of Sabbath-Keeping," by Gary North, published as an
appendix to The Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdoony, pp. 824-36.)
On another occasion, I attended a conference at the prominent
reconstructionist church in Atlanta, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church. During my
visit, I was given a very nice rationale on why it is appropriate to routinely
resort to restaurants on Sunday after church, in spite of the fact that the
fourth commandment mandates a rest for servants and the "stranger that is
within thy gates" (Ex. 20:10).
I mention these experiences because they raise another perplexing question
about the commitment of reconstructionists to the first table of the law. Is
this not another case where theonomists display an inadequate adherence to
God's law?
Many critics of the reconstructionists, especially dispensationalists, are
themselves blatant antinomians. For this reason, they fail to perceive the most
glaring weakness within the movement. Further, the Presbyterian critics of
theonomy are usually among the most unconfessional men within the denomination.
Hence, these Presbyterian detractors are not fond of discussing issues related
to confessional integrity.
But the time has come to raise these uncomfortable issues, for the sake of
the church and the sake of the movement. The reconstructionist movement
includes many trends which are both antinomian and unconfessional. We call upon
the leaders of the movement to address these issues: How do you integrate the
first commandment into your reconstructionist appeals to heretics? How does
purity of worship fit within your agenda of reform? How should the fourth
commandment be upheld in the contemporary situation?
We will be listening for answers to these questions. Yet, until these issues
are addressed, in conformity with the whole counsel of God's Word, the
reconstructionist movement remains seriously flawed.
Meanwhile, contemporary readers would do well to remain wary of a movement
which is like the "double-minded
man ... unstable in all his ways" (James 1:8).
Copyright © 1988 by Kevin Reed
1996 printing
Presbyterian Heritage Publications
P.O. Box 180922, Dallas, Texas 75218
U.S.A.