#Theonomist

[theexodvs]

Those damn theonomists! They're all a bunch of Marcionite judaizers who promote nationalist sedition and quiverfull sex negativity!

[dakotaking]

Tag urself

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

the Christian wants to influence the culture around him because he knows God’s ways prevent the most suffering for the most vulnerable. not because he believes he can hasten the next coming or build the Kingdom by human effort.

[apilgrimpassingby]

Views of Christ and Culture

So, this morning I was watching a video on Reinhold Niebuhr's typology of five views of Christ and culture. They are:

Christ against culture: the culture is seen as something bad that Christians are to avoid interaction with as much as possible. The most obvious form of this is Anabaptist groups like the Amish, but less extreme versions of it can be found among most Baptists (and related groups like Pentecostals and Evangelicals) and form the basis for monasticism.

Christ of culture: the culture is seen to be basically good, if flawed, and working for the same things as Christ. This is most associated with liberal theology, although I'd argue that the prosperity gospel is the most prevalent form of this.

Christ above culture: the culture is seen to be good, but its natural, temporary good must not be confused with or used as a substitute for the supernatural, eternal good of Christ. This is the view of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Christ and culture in paradox: Culture and the church are two separate institutions that, though Christians have duties in both of them, are not to be confused or allowed to dominate the other. This is the traditional stance of Lutheranism and Radical Two Kingdoms theology among the Reformed.

Christ as the redeemer of culture: the culture is seen as basically bad, but Christians are to put it under Christ's dominion for Him to redeem. This is the view of the Theonomist and Kuyperian theologies among the Reformed.

Everyone who'd like to, respond with which one you support and why! Tagging @sapphosremains and @idylls-of-the-divine-romance to see if the "progressives support Christ of culture" is accurate to the ones I know.

[vague-humanoid]

Texas pastor Joel Webbon is a radical Christian nationalist who advocates something called general equity theonomy, a far-right Christian theology that asserts that laws and rules set out in the Old Testament still apply today. While those laws and rules may have originally applied to conditions and circumstances specific to the ancient Israelites, general equity theonomists assert that the general principles behind those rules ought to still be in effect today. 

This idea was the driving force behind legislation unabashed Christian nationalist pastor and Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers introduced earlier this year that would have amended the law for "willfully, knowingly and without probable cause [making] a false report" alleging that someone committed a crime by changing the penalty so that those found guilty would face the same punishment that the falsely reported crime carries.  

Filing a false report was already illegal in Oklahoma, but Deevers' wanted the legislation changed simply so that the punishment will be in accordance with the Bible, repeatedly citing the Bible's various "eye for an eye" provisions found in the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy.

Webbon, who is a close associate of Deevers', used a recent sermon to advocate for this sort of legislation, asserting that it could be used to publicly execute women who file false reports of sexual assault, which is perfectly in keeping with Webbon's virulent misogyny. 

"In Israel, and this should be the law of the land in our country and every country still to this day, this is a timeless principle, a timeless, universal truth," Webbon preached. "If you perjure yourself by bearing false witness accusing somebody else, whatever the penalty would have been for that person had they been found guilty, then that penalty should fall on your head for falsely accusing them."

"So if you accuse in a court of law, falsely accuse someone of murder and it turns out in the final analysis that that person is not guilty of murder," Webbon continued, "and the penalty for murder should be capital punishment—life for life—then you, even though you have not committed murder, because you falsely accused someone else for murder and the penalty for that crime would have been death, you should be put to death."

"If that were to occur and the just penalties were to be enforced, you, the false accuser, is now put to death," Webbon declared. "And that's a public death. It's a public sentence, publicly carried out, then the citizens of these United States of America, you know what they would do? #MeToo would end real fast. False accusing, playing the victim when you're actually not; you know how to end that real fast? All you have to do is publicly execute a few women who have lied."

[deadinarussianelevator]

I didn’t have my weird group chat of post-mil theonomists having people become blatantly antisemitic on my 2024 bingo card but here we are

[dogsagainstbenitojuarez]

Millenials turn 30 and then become

Yogis,

Communists,

Transhumanist,

Theonomists,

Sedevecantists.

[faeriefully]

not surprised to find out my post-mil friend is an theonomist… knowing him.. that tracks…

[partisan-by-default]

Texas pastor Joel Webbon is a radical Christian nationalist who advocates something called general equity theonomy, a far-right Christian theology that asserts that laws and rules set out in the Old Testament still apply today. While those laws and rules may have originally applied to conditions and circumstances specific to the ancient Israelites, general equity theonomists assert that the general principles behind those rules ought to still be in effect today. 

This idea was the driving force behind legislation unabashed Christian nationalist pastor and Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers introduced earlier this year that would have amended the law for "willfully, knowingly and without probable cause [making] a false report" alleging that someone committed a crime by changing the penalty so that those found guilty would face the same punishment that the falsely reported crime carries.  

Filing a false report was already illegal in Oklahoma, but Deevers' wanted the legislation changed simply so that the punishment will be in accordance with the Bible, repeatedly citing the Bible's various "eye for an eye" provisions found in the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy.

Webbon, who is a close associate of Deevers', used a recent sermon to advocate for this sort of legislation, asserting that it could be used to publicly execute women who file false reports of sexual assault, which is perfectly in keeping with Webbon's virulent misogyny. 

(twitter)

[theexodvs]

Me: Marriage does not belong in the hands of civil magistrate.

Christian Nationalists: HOW DARE YOU--

Me: With the understanding that not one non-governmental organization which blesses same-sex unions has increased in membership at least three out of the last ten years.

[sgapologetics]

A Theonomist on a Road Trip

A Theonomist on a Road Trip

There once was a man named Saul. This man was a Hebrew, he actually calls himself a Hebrew of Hebrews. (Phil. 3:5) He had a genealogy that proved it and he sat under one of the prominent teachers in Israel. (Acts 22:3) Saul was a very learned man, he was a Pharisee. As a Pharisee, he had the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) memorized. Saul also said of himself that he was blameless as touching the…

[arcticdementor]

Years ago, back in the times before Bioleninism and all that, I made a name for myself in the intellectual parts of the right-wing blogosphere (≈neoreaction) in a large part because I was the best at categorizing the different strands of dissident thought. Back then I said there was by and large three different factions, the religious, the nationalist and the technological, what then Nick Land rebranded as the trichotomy of theonomist, ethno-nationalist and techno-commercialist.

That was 2013 though, and a lot has happened since. Most of it bad. Some good things too: Russia grew a spine, annexed Crimea and kicked USG out of Syria. China grew two spines, destroyed their liberal fifth-column, is forcibly assimilating their native muslims and is fast approaching military parity with USG.

And yes, Trump happened. That was fun. It unleashed a renaissance of right-wing memery. But Trump also failed to get anything done, he’s likely to lose the next election, and now not even the memes are safe, as the CIA has co-opted 4chan talent for export, as seen in Pepe frogs in Hong Kong and Joker thots in Lebanon. Not cool.

…

Yes, I’m a demographic pessimist. I see the above figures and see how the Western world is slowly becoming Brazil, half white, half black. But Brazil itself is not stable; white people are having less babies than black people there. Brazil is slowly becoming something like South Africa, 10% white, 90% black. But again, South Africa is not stable itself, is it? Birth rates are different, and if that didn’t suffice, blacks there are outright murdering white people and chasing them off the land. The actual endgame is actually worse than South Africa, which still has (people tell me) some very fine spots, such as Cape Town.

The end game is Haiti. 100% black, and arguably the nastiest, poorest, worst shithole on the face of earth. That’s what we’re facing if demographic trends keep worsening as they are.

“Oh come on”, you may say. It’s never going to get that bad. At some point demographic trends self-correct, right? Evolution will run its course. Leftists aren’t having children, eventually the differential fertility of conservative people will make sure everyone is based and redpilled.

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard that, I’d be the pope. Yes, Catholics love this argument. Christians, more widely. They have sacrificed a lot to have children and stable families in this society which does everything it can to promote unhappiness and dysfunctional lifestyles. If there is a God, surely at least their sacrifices will win them the future of the species? History will talk about them as ancestors of the next stage of humanity. Right??

Wrong. I’m sorry guys, but evolution doesn’t work like that. Yes, sure, evolution is about differential reproduction. Whatever genes make you have more babies in a given environment, spread in the genepool. And whatever genes do the opposite, make it marginally harder for you to reproduce, disappear from the genepool. So yes, on the face of it, “genes that make you want children” are by definition being promoted by natural selection. The argument, as explained by promoters such as Anatoly Karlin, is that humans until now have been fruitful and multiplied perfectly well through a basic motivation: seeking sexual pleasure. But that motivation doesn’t work anymore in an environment with easy contraception, so the future belongs to people with psychological traits that make them enjoy family life.

Does it work like that, though? Are there any genes that “make you want children”? Does the brain work like that? The human brain is complicated, you see, but it is also an evolution of the more basic mammal brain, and its circuitry must follow roughly the same pathways. And last time I checked all mammals reproduce exactly the same way. The male produce quadrillions of sperm every minute, and are at the hunt of every ovulating female. The moment they find one they jump onto her, copulate semi-forcibly, and babies ensue. Yeah, this pretty much includes humans.

The idea that humans are going to single-handedly evolve, over single-digit generations, a completely different pattern of reproduction to replace one which has been functional for 60 million years strikes me as pretty wild wishful thinking.

…

Supposedly though, at some point of impoverishment, the downward drift of average IQ would stop, as intelligence would begin to pay again. Without welfare and Bioleninist political machines with an incentive to bring ever stupider people into a country in order to lower the cost of clientelism, at some point the drift into Global Haiti ceases to function, and you get some sort of stable equilibrium of, say, 90-95 IQ people. Living in more or less permanent starvation wages and some sort of low-level medieval warfare.

Quite depressing, huh? Well remember, that’s a best-case scenario. That’s what happens if that Conservatives-inherit-the-earth mantra actually succeeds. Remember the trichotomy I mentioned at the beginning? Well the above scenario is what theonomists are for. They won’t say it, they probably never thought it through that much. But that’s undoubtedly what a Theonomist Revolution against progressivism would entail.

…

But again, I just don’t see it. The Kuwaitis aren’t very smart; their birth rate is in 1.6. The Arabs across Europe aren’t replacing themselves. The Mexicans in the US are also below replacement! Even if, and this is a big if, there was some easily assemblable collection of genes by which people would love having children far above their love for playing status games in a modern society with Tinder and cheap contraception, odds are by the time those genes have starting to spread, in a few generations time, 90% of humanity is already African. And so, again, Global Haiti.

…

So that’s it? Either Global Haiti or Global Mexico?

Well not quite. Tech-comms have something to say too. Humans aren’t all dumb, not yet. What if there’s a technological way out of the demographic crisis? Well, there kinda is. And it’s a year old actually. Has everyone forgot about He Jiankui?

…

Genetic sequencing is advancing fast these years. Perhaps the only thing which is still progressing fast after computing’s Moore’s Law stopped working 10 years ago. We already know dozens of genes involved in increasing IQ, and we’ll sure know of hundreds, maybe thousands. It seems likely that within our lifetimes we’ll have the capability of safely increasing the IQ of IVF embryos by 10-20 points. Would you take that? Perhaps not. Would that Chinese Tiger Mom-in-becoming living across the street take the chance? Of course she will. Do you want your own kids to be the dumbest at class? I thought so.

The bottleneck here would be IVF, which is still a rather slow and ineffective process, although perhaps with some room for improvement. That bottleneck could be solved, though, with a technology which is still quite far away. Strangely so, given the obvious incentives to develop it in what is effectively a feminist world. Ectogenesis, i.e. artificial wombs. Don’t women complain about how unfair it is they get pregnant and lose all that time to build their careers, while men only bust a nut and keep climbing that dear corporate ladder? Fear no more, ladies. Just put your eggs in this machine, and 9 months later you’ll get your baby delivered to your home. Free delivery if you sign up for Amazon Prime.

If this is sounds like Brave New World, well yes, that’s pretty much what that was about. Aldous Huxley came from a long line of distinguished biologists and couldn’t see things like TV and computers coming. Eventually he got into drugs, but I’m sure he died still puzzled by why ectogenesis didn’t become a thing during his lifetime. It stands to reason that eventually it will. And once artificial wombs are reliable and affordable, in a world with CRISPR, you don’t really need families anymore. Anybody can ‘produce’ children, raise them in ‘villages’ (because it takes a village!) and just be done with the whole problem. Progressivism taken to its logical conclusion. It’s better conclusion, the way that progressives of the 1900s saw it, the production of a race of ever more rational and free humans. Yes, it’s kinda messed up, but it has its logic. The twisted mechanics that led to our present Biological Leninist politics were, in the end, just the result of a lack of state authority. That may resolve itself quite soon. Again, with modern technology.

So yep, let me offer you a new Trichotomy. Global Haiti. Global Mexico. Or Brave New World. Pick your poison. I know mine.

[fruityyamenrunner]

absolutely not. the abortion issue in America is entirely a jobs programme for canon lawyers, papists in general, theonomists who worked out the catholics were onto something, and satanic reactionaries to them both.

this doesn't happen in other countries. it's not a natural result of the philosophical shape of the problem. it's all churchmanship.

expand this and you will get people teaching the masses to rehearse richard weaver and réné guenon nonsense about evil entered the world because of nominalism and quantification and nobody will be able to get anything done

i wish all political issues were like abortion. its so...philosophical! like half of political issues are based around like, fact-debates, and not even interesting fact debates. abortion is so interesting, like, it really probes at the edges of our ethical intuitions, and even from multiple different directions, like theres the question of if fetuses are moral patients and then if they ARE does that even change things, etc

[distilled-orthopraxy]

On Theonomy

In much the same manner as the words ‘Baptist’ and ‘Evangelical’, the simple meaning of the word Theonomy is very different from the umbrella of ideas it has come to represent. As Doug Wilson has said, every Christian is a theonomist, because theonomy (theos-God, nomos-law) is just God’s law, and every person who is truly indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit loves and cherishes his law (see Psalm…

[inkbucket]

On Political Involvement

Even though I disagree with some of their theology and practices, I respect the Mennonites because they’re willing to accept the odd looks and general “these are crazy people” reaction that society renders them because of their peculiar dress and manner of life.  In the same way, I’d like to begin a criticism of theonomy and Christian Nationalism by saying that I have a similar respect for the folks who hold these opinions - I think they’re deeply wrong, but I do respect their willingness to be mocked and jeered at.  That takes courage, which the church in America could use a lot more of.

What does it mean that Jesus is King of the Universe? To me, it means we should actually do what he says - even in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 - and view whoever is put in charge over us politically (and in all other spheres of human authority) as being given to us by Jesus Christ for our good.  Sometimes for blessing and joy and freedom, sometimes for discipline and judgement and slavery (Nehemiah 9:36), but always a mere tool and emissary of King Jesus (Isaiah 10:15).  

Here we are, servants today! And the land that You gave to our fathers, To eat its fruit and its bounty, Here we are, servants in it! And it yields much increase to the kings You have set over us, Because of our sins; Also they have dominion over our bodies and our cattle At their pleasure; And we are in great distress. - Nehemiah 9:36

Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood! - Isaiah 10:15

The powers that be would certainly be offended if they realized the truth: that all their pomp and circumstance are empty theater, and that their heart beats or ceases to beat at the command of a higher King, who controls even their desires and plans (Proverbs 21:1).

The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes. - Proverbs 21:1

The theonomists have deemphasized this central theme of good Christian political theology to the point of irrelevance.  They think that when God judges an evil empire like our own by placing more despotic rulers over us, it's something that can be remedied if only the Church were more politically active or shouted for biblical principles more loudly in the public sphere (more and more loudly as our numbers shrink).  Because as good postmillenials, it’s our job to immanentize the eschaton, right?

The blood of sixty million innocents cries out from the ground of the United States of America, over which we walk proudly declaring that it’s a Christian country and that we still own the public square.  Even patterns that can be obviously deduced from nature (such as gender) have been denied, and Science and Reason (which have themselves been heavyweight idols for several centuries) have been forced to bow down to newer and bigger and more unkempt idols.  Christians who actually believe the Bible are a shrinking minority.  And that’s OK because Jesus is still in charge, and this is what he’s giving us right now… and it must be for our good because He promises that all things work together for the good of those who love Him.

Wisdom means seeing the signs of the times, and knowing what’s fitting to do in each season.  David fleeing from Saul for years while refusing to take his life or overthrow him (even though he’d become an insane tyrant who mass murdered priests of God)… Jesus’ command to early disciples “when they persecute you in this city, flee to another” (Matthew 12:23).  Have you noticed how much running away the people of God do in Scripture?  A lot.  That doesn’t appeal to the resurrected form of ancient pagan masculinity being passed off as Christian in some circles today, but it’s true.  

Sometimes, of course, God appoints a champion to stab Ehud or kill Goliath and they do use violence.  But David’s not allowed to build the temple because he’s a man of war rather than a man of peace - even then, and much more in the New Testament as God’s heart is more fully revealed, living at peace is normative for Christians, insofar as it depends on us (Romans 12:18).  On a human level, it’s humiliating: going the second mile or turning the other cheek isn’t fun or masculine or sexy according to both the world’s judgment or our natural inclinations.

Perhaps a confusion about vocation that’s the real rub here: if God has appointed you to be the President of the United States or a senator or mayor, you should hold that office as a Christian and use whatever wisdom God’s given you to do your job, which means that yes, you will certainly apply Biblical principles to your vocation - same as a good Christian plumber would apply those same principles to his work.  If you’re an average voter and feel like you can ethically vote for someone, then use your minuscule influence for good.  But the New Testament is eerily silent about the value of traditional political power, and that should make us suspicious.  They tried to make Jesus an earthly king by force and He refused (John 6:15).

Loving the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, and loving our neighbor as ourselves, is not a calling or license to be political busybodies.  When God gives us harsh masters we cry out to Him for relief; and when he blesses us by giving us better rulers than we deserve, we thank Him.  Politics is the domain of the high and mighty, and one wonders how much the heart of a Christian should be drawn toward them.  We’re more in the meek and lowly in heart camp, working with our hands and living peaceful, quiet lives (1 Thessalonians 4:10).

But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more; that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing. - 1 Thessalonians 4:10

As Paul knew very well, sometimes that’s not possible when you speak the truth: mobs and riots and stoning were unfortunately normal for him.  But let’s make sure that we’re stoned for good works: speaking the truth about abortion and pornography and homosexuallty in love to our immediate neighbors, welcoming strangers into our lives and telling them the good news that another King greater than Caesar is here.  Let’s be stoned for encouraging and binding up the weary, and making sure that whatever spheres of influence God has placed partially under our control (home, office, neighborhood, etc) should function according the the law of liberty.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” implies that some things are Caesar’s business, not ours.  Are you a centurion?  Then of course part of Caesar’s business is your business too.  But taking it to mean that plain Christian citizens therefore “own” whatever government God currently has them under is like saying Christians own all the cars and houses that belong to the other people in their town, since ultimately all cars and houses do belong to King Jesus, right?  It’s true that all things are ours, but that doesn’t mean that I can commandeer my neighbor’s Lexus.

Being an informed voter takes at most a couple hours a year.  Keeping your eyes open for news that could actually affect the people you love takes a few minutes a week.  I can’t speak for everyone, but for myself, whenever I go much beyond that I get a strong sense that I’m just being a busybody in other people’s matters (1 Peter 4) and a connoisseur of indignation.

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. - 1 Peter 4

[part-time-calvinist]

Think for yourself, or don’t

I was criticized recently for not being able to think for myself on religious matters. This was said to me by a nonbeliever, saying that I relied too much on what the Bible says about sin. Not an unflattering criticism imo, but honestly I could wish to have that problem; to be able to not think for myself.

I am a confessional, Trinitarian, sabbatarian, predestinarian, somewhat theonomist Reformed Christian, but as Luther said, “[it] took three years of constant study, reflection, and discussion to arrive where I now am...” Perhaps not *constant*, but my personal reformation took many long months of soul-searching, and a complete reworking of my way of thinking. I have had to change my mind many times on so many subjects. 

Sometimes I wish I had been spared from all this thinking, and when I approach others about these doctrines, I know what kind of mental effort and anguish I am asking from them. But the end is so much better, to rely so fully on Jesus Christ, and to have such faith in the sovereignty of the Triune God; it is truly a peace that passes all understanding.

But why must we prove everything exhaustively to ourselves? Why cannot we just have a childlike faith, and trust in the Bible, and just accept everything that has been written by theologians? Because we are rational creatures, and God has made us so. Besides, Christianity is a thinking religion, not unworthy of many lifetimes of thought. The more mental effort we invest in the doctrines of our faith, the stronger our personal faith grows.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. There’s nothing you can think of that has not been written about before. And if you seem to discover some new theory, it may already be an ancient heresy. Many excellent books have been written about Christian theology; the City of God, the Summa, the Institutes, just to name the greatest. There are so many more, more than could be read in several lifetimes, but as Richard Baxter said, “It is not the reading of many books which makes a man wise, but the well-reading of a few, if he could be sure to have the best.” 

You don’t have to rewrite systematic theology all by yourself to be a Christian, but Christ does command you to understand and believe the doctrines of the faith. Read your Bible prayerfully, and invest some time in theology; it’s worth the effort.