Me, too! That doesn’t seem like a theocracy – just a government with kindhearted common sense.
Well put, Dick.
My introduction to this strain of Calvinism took place the first time I visited an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Following the service, my wife Ronda and I were invited to stay for a pot luck; we took seats, and I ended up next to an amiable fellow named Clay, who greeted me with - and I kid you not - the idea that we should be stoning homosexuals in the streets. My jaw fell, bounced off the table, and rolled out the door. The pastor, a good man who became a friend, overheard, and after the pot luck gave Clay a good dressing-down. BUT - not because he disagreed with him. It was because the denomination had decided to TRY to put “a smiling face on Calvinism.”
Shortly thereafter I read Greg Bahnsen’s book “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” - he was better informed than me, and made good arguments, but since the conclusions he reached were so abysmally saddening, and since therefore I ‘knew’ (justifiably I think) that something must be wrong in the argument, it did spur me on to further and deeper study.
And I am happily on this Forum with fellow believers today as a result of that study.
I highly recommend his book as an extremely clear and detailed argument for theonomy as the basis of Christian ethics. Be careful as you read it, though; question everything, and if you are puzzled, as you will be, maybe run your questions through this Forum. There be some smart people here.
I think the sort of thinking that you find in Rushdooney is wider than the Theonomists – but you find it in a more diluted form. For example Kuyperianism tends in this direction only Kuyper’s model was that of separate development – or the pillarisation of society. In this model the Calvinists have their own universities, self government etc in which God is sovereign (any university in Holland with the epithet ‘Free’ attached to it is run on this model); whereas Catholics and secularists have their own spheres of separate development. It’s a sort of ghettoised pluralism. When this was model transferred to the colonial setting in South Africa it produced Apartheid (which means separate development).
The Dutch Calvinists on the whole have a tendency towards extreme sectarianism. Cornelius van Til was a Dutch American Calvinist whose apologetics – shouting no common ground with people who are not Calvinists and do not concede any - influenced Rushdooney greatly (although van Til may not have approved of Rushdooney’s political programme). Also some of the thinking of Francis Schaeffer tends in a theonomist direction – and he was a very influential figure in the setting up of the so called Christian Right in America. The one thing that saved him from Rushdooney’s extremism is that Schaeffer was a premillenialist – a novel view in Calvinism – and he felt able and duty bound to rail against a corrupt world without thinking he could actually perfect it. According to Frank Schaeffer, his father who knew Rushdooney who had stayed at the Schaeffers’ retreat at L’Abri i Switzerland with North and with Tim La Haye, thought he was a madman – but he did not denounce his co-belligerent against the evils of the modern world. Likewise according to Frank his father thought Pat Robinsons a huckster – but again he did not denounce him for this.
So yes –take each person for what they are as you meet them – but be wary of the extremes and be forewarned against them and be committed to the good things in society that are a hedge against them.
Dick
Yikes! I did a bit more reading on Rushdoony. I don’t really have much to add to the conversation – just yikes!
When did Presbyterianism make a switch to becoming one of the more “liberal” denominations? I know many Presbyterian churches, although still Calvinist presumably, have endorsed things such as female ministers and gay marriage. They seem a far cry from the scary world Rushdoony promotes!
Rushdoony is a loony, for sure and for certain. I’m glad I’ll never cross his path, but it’s odd and unsettling that Gary North still holds so much power over the “Christian Reconstruction” movement. According to Eye’s Right: Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, North carries on Rushdoony’s influence, insisting that:
I wonder how Rushloony would explain Jesus’ pardoning of the adulterous woman and then telling onlookers that only he without sin may throw the first stone.
Well Kate 
- the history of Presbyterianism becoming an open and tolerant denomination is a curious one –at least in England. The original Calvinists were never badly persecuted in England but they did stick up for freedoms against Royal Authority. When they came to power here however, they ruled in their own self interest and not in the interests of the people at large (and they brought in a law making belief in universalism punishable by imprisonment). They thought they would govern England as a godly country but – because they became tyrants so quickly they were kicked out by Cromwell and the Independents. And slowly from this experience and through being deprived of offices when the monarchy returned they had to learn to live with being a dissenting minority in a plural society. This meant that all of the better traditions of Calvinism – of struggle for freedoms of worship and of valuing learning – came to the fore; while the less glorious traditions slowly withered on the vine. Perhaps something parallel happened in the USA.
How do they get round Jesus forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery and his protection of her from a righteous lynch mob. Difficult one. Some say Jesus’ ruling was applicable to this particular case only while the OT law was/is still effective for all other cases. Others – and here’s a pretty point– have a more devious argument. Theonomists are all dyed in the wool fundamentalists. However, in this case they make use of ungodly Biblical criticism to serve their own ends. The narrative of the woman taken in adultery is a ‘free floating text – in ancient manuscripts it is sometimes included in John and sometime in Luke. However, there is no doubt that it forms part of the very ancient traditions of Church memory of Jesus and is perfectly in keeping with his character as displayed in the rest of the Gospel narratives. But because it is a free floating text – and because it is an inconvenient text for them - they say it is inauthentic.
Och well – bless ‘em I say. And don’t distress yourself with them. There will always be extremists in the world – we live in good courage that they won’t have the last laugh.
In Christ our Hen
Dick
Hmmm – interesting. But how sad that some individuals have actually attempted to come up with a way to “explain away” a story of Jesus’ mercy.
And good to know that we universalists would only be imprisoned – we can have some tea and conversation and make the best of things. 
The theme of this thread - ‘Friends’ - reminds me of something CS Lewis wrote, though I cannot remember exactly where. The gist of it was, that friendships generally start by two people discovering something they both are passionate about, one way or the other. Not by first looking at one another - the focus is usually outside them. It can be anything, and makes for strange bedfellows. (I don’t know if we use that term anymore?)
Making friends with a Calvinist qua Calvinist would probably not be possible for many of us; however, I have close friends who happen to be Calvinists - based initially on the fact that they LOVE to cook, and I, well, love to eat. 
The particular couple, in fact, invited Ronda and I to dinner AFTER the potluck where I met Clay. We were a little reluctant to go, but we did, and Dave (his name) was cooking steak with a recipe out of Bon Apetit, and we sat down to eat, said grace, and I took a bite of the steak, looked up - the other 3 were looking right at me - and said, as honestly as I have ever said anything: “That is the best steak I have ever tasted”. Smiles all around, wine glasses tinkled, and the start of a 30 year friendship. They are so confident in their Calvinism, and we are so confident in our Eu-ism, that the subject does not even come up!
The only real difficulty in the relationship is, when we go to visit, Dave insists the gals go out shopping (he does not have to insist that much), so that he and I can sit down with a great glass of port, read our books and - help me, Lord - listen, on his high-end stereo, to BROADWAY tunes. 
Which I loathe. Deeply.
Excellent historic summary, Dick.
It is interesting that you mention Val Til’s influence on Rushdooney. Dave mentioned Greg Bahnsen’s contribution to theonomy above. Bahnsen was a student of Van Til and did much to popularize Van Tillianism in the succeeding generation. Theonomy is just one more reason I’m not a fan of Van Tillians. 
On the other end of the spectrum from the theonomists among conservative Presbyterians, there is the “Reformed Two Kingdom” (R2K) position. This position is common among the successors of Meredith Kline (popular among Westminster Southern California professors: Scott Clark, Kim Riddlebarger, David Van Drunen). The R2K position sets a contradistinction between the civil government and church government as two separate realms of God’s sovereign rule. In this view the civil government is concerned with “natural law” while the church handles all spiritual matters.
As a Libertarian I tended more toward R2K and away from theonomy, as R2K seems much more suited for libertarians.
I find it funny that Gary North claims to be both a theonomist and a libertarian (he even writes for LewRockwell.com - a staunchly libertarian group). I’m not sure how that works, as I have always seen theonomy and libertarianism as polar opposites.
Thanks Dan - you are the expert here so I take that as a real compliment. Thank you 
I hope I have made it clear that I in no way want to tar all Calvinists with the same brush - or all TULIP Calvinists with the same brush. I’m so glad you’ve found a home here
I think I have discovered our greatest source of debate, Dave: The pros and cons of Broadway tunes. It’s fun to belt every once and a while! 
One of the gravest dangers to Christianity is that people do desire to implement a governmental system that is some way grounded in Jesus. I think its fundamentally incoherent and you can’t find any meaningful pointers in the Christian scriptures because Jesus’ example had nothing to do with “governing” others (Matthew 20:25-28). The theonomists actually get this right, but because they’re so obsessed with governing everyone they have to run to (frightening interpretations of) Mosaic Torah.
Theonomy might be a minority movement, but it has its adherents in spades. I’ve come across many over the last few years — in fact, I’d say that it’s probably the predominate political vision of the IFB community, even if few are outspoken about it. A close pastor in my IFB circles was a keen theonomist (though an otherwise gentle and compassionate man) and we had a rather pleasant discussion about it over lunch once. I was, more or less, of the same opinion that I am now — pacific anarchism. In retrospect, it was a very tiresome conversation, but I did enjoy it at the time. We were both guests to a hospitable IFB family, but our argument dominated the conversation and no one else said a single word That sensitive, fundamentalist tact! Theonomists are loudest on the internet though (and we’ve had them come through here — just quietly, but thinly veiled, in my opinion).
Hi Andrew -
Lovely to see you posting. Hmmmm I think James was a bit hard on you earlier I’ll have to biff him. Of course a persons understanding of friendship with Calvinists will be very much formed by the sort of Calvinists’ they have interacted with. You’ve had a raw deal.
(And you know my reference to Anarchist’s earlier was about The Christs of Violence and not about you dear friend )
Dick
What does IFB stand for? 
Independent Fundamentalist Baptist
Never heard of them
I don’t know whether you’re being serious or not…
Basically the IFB movement is an open-ended collection of churches who secede from the State, denominations and broader ecumenism, and champion congregational autonomy (though always heavily-shepherded by a white, patriarchal fascist), “fundamental” Christian beliefs (usually including things like YEC, tee-totalism, biblical literalness and inerrancy, and even more radically crankish anti-intellectual ideas — but not limited to Calvinism), and other, generally Baptist, distinctives.
I think some of the worst modern “Christian” abuses (theological, emotional and otherwise) have come from the IFB movement. According to Wikipedia (2008), 3% of US adults identify with the movement. Wow.
OK Andrew - I’ve looked them up. I see now and I understand 
Oh dear. well you’re best off out of them old chap And I know what you mean about thinly veiled theonomists passing through here - oh I can spot 'em too, in the end. You get a second sense for it. But the funny thing is that I was never involved with theonomists - I just read their stuff when I was very vulnerable and it took me three years to get my head back together even slightly. It is so brutal and meant to completely undermine a persons ability to be otherwise. Oh well - it did come back together again.
Ah yes. When my parents decided the Presbyterians were getting too liberal, they moved the family to an Independent Baptist church. One of their better decisions. Is emotional abuse a crime? God only knows how I survived.
Kate, oh Kate - You’ve caught me out - I actually will, if I’m home alone, break out into “Bess You Is My Woman Now” or “I Was Born Under a Wandrin’ Star” by by golly I will NOT sing an Ethel Merman tune!! Or anything from “Cats”.
That’s as far as I can go. I loathe the rest.
So I guess you won’t “Kiss Me Kate” ?