Introduction[1]
Paul Carter, a prominent pastor in Ontario, recently wrote an article for the Gospel Coalition entitled, Why I am not a Theonomist. Doctrinally, theonomy is a reformational theological understanding of God’s law, which confesses that the old and new covenant law remain binding upon both Christians and the broader society: God’s moral order has an abiding jurisdiction over every sphere of life as the dominion of Christ’s Lordship is universal (Rev 1:5) because He is both Creator and Sustainer (Col 1:15-20). To Carter’s credit, readers will most certainly come away with a clear understanding as to why he is not a Theonomist. He is, after all, clear on his views that the Mosaic law is no longer in effect. He does not believe that the Israelites’ theocracy should be a model for civil governments. Furthermore, Carter unequivocally states that he is not a Postmillennialist. He, contrasting his perception of theonomists, is not an anti-statist. Meanwhile, Carter, in openly expressing his disagreement with theonomists, has a difficult time seeing past the accusatory rhetoric, which he interestingly lays on prominent thinkers, who unapologetically are espoused to theonomy. Now, while readers will undoubtedly gain an understanding as to why Carter disagrees with the Theonomist position, the introspective manner in which he argues his points are unconvincing.
On the Matter of Carter’s View of the Mosaic Civil Law
From the onset, readers will notice Carter’s perspective on the Mosaic law. In Carter’s view, the binding nature of the Mosaic law was limited to the nation of Israel, and, even though the Mosaic law might contain wisdom, relevant for modern civil law, Christians, in Carter’s opinion, should not seek to apply the Mosaic law to the current context. Carter’s position on the Mosaic law could very well be summarized by this statement: “we may still find great wisdom and guidance in the Sinai Covenant but it cannot be considered binding on peoples and nations today.”[2] Now to be sure, obedience to the Mosaic law has transition in application, but, in observing this, the substance and purpose of the law remains unchanged.
The ceremonial component of the law, by way of example, remains unchanged in the sense that Christ perfectly fulfilled it as the incarnate God man: this has always been, from eternity’s past, the the Trinitarian purpose of the ceremonial law. The enduring priority, relevant in both the old and new covenant is the moral perfection of the living church. The institution of the ceremonial law, being as the author describes as “a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1), mandated continual animal sacrifices, on a year-to-year basis, to anticipate the fulfillment of Christ’s propitiatory atonement. The author of Hebrews, for this reason, states “for by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb 10:14, ESV). The ceremonial law, established in the old covenant, remains binding in the sense that the people of God are to recognise that their moral perfection stems from the sacrificial provision, determined by God alone: the ceremonial structure of the old covenant community was a type that anticipated Jesus Christ, who is the true representative sacrifice.
The ceremonial component of the Sinai covenant, therefore, remains binding to the extent that Christians look to Jesus Christ, not animal sacrifices, as their source of moral perfection. So, ceremonial law is arguably even more binding in the new covenant than the old in that we have a vivid understanding of the Christological reality to which the old covenant community could only anticipate as a shadow of greater things to come (Heb 12:1-2). Carter, when faced with these truths asserted by the author of Hebrews, cannot claim that the Sinai covenant cannot be considered binding on peoples and nations today apart from veering from biblical testimony.
Of course, the way in which Carter develops his argumentation is contradictory. He, for example, states, in no uncertain terms, that the law of Moses expired with the life and death of Jesus, but yet he also states that the 10 commandments are eternal and immutable. Carter states: “The 10 Commandments were a particular covenantal expression of the unchanging holiness of God. The morality behind the 10 Commandments is thus eternal and immutable, but the Law of Moses as an integrated covenant expired with the life and death of Jesus.” If the 10 Commandments are, as Carter explains, eternal and immutable, why would the life and death of Christ bring about the expiration of God’s covenant with Moses? It is difficult to reconcile the unchanging and eternal nature of the 10 Commandments with Carter’s claim that such laws expired with Christ’s coming. To Carter’s credit, he does see the enduring importance of biblical obedience; otherwise, he would not have stressed that the law is still relevant to the Christian. I found it refreshing to his statement, “Of course it does!!” The confusion with Carter’s argument is, therefore, concerned with the contradictions that it imposes. If the law of Moses truly did expire with the life and death of Christ, then one could conclude the logical inconsistency with his affirmation that the law still remains relevant for Christians.
Carter’s argument, which asserts that the Sinai covenant cannot be considered binding on peoples and nations today, loses credibility when faced with the truth of perfection as revealed by the author of Hebrews, which demonstrates a theologically problematic contradiction between the biblical witness and Carter’s argument. Furthermore, the contradiction between Carter’s claim that the Mosaic law is eternal and immutable, while being subject to expiration with the coming of Christ makes it difficult for readers to recognize the credibility of the argument that the law of Moses cannot be considered binding to all peoples and nations today.
On the Matter of Carter’s view of the Israelite Theocracy as an Intended Universal Model for Civil Government
Carter’s second point is closely related to his first to the extent that he broadens the discussion from the binding nature of God’s law over peoples to the binding nature of God’s law over nations. Carter’s position on the non-binding nature of the Mosaic law follows his first point in that he does not see biblical law as having a jurisdictional influence over the nations. The Mosaic law, Carter’s view, should, thereby, not be a model for civil government. In the effort to both develop and strengthen his argument, Carter, of course, appeals to several reformed biblical scholars, like John Calvin, Carl Trueman, and Tom Nettles, to demonstrate that the theocracy of Israel is not a model for modern government but is rather an anticipation of the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ.
But if Jesus Christ is the eternal king, as Carter rightly affirms, what ramifications does the Lordship of Christ have on the current direction of the nations? Can civil government truly claim a non-religious neutrality? Since we are all religious beings, no institution can claim a neutral position on the law of God that is inherently autonomous: people will either be covenant keepers or covenant breakers.[3]
The Kingship of Christ, therefore, has real world implications in the present, raising the important question: Is Carter’s claim that the Israelites’ theocracy should not be viewed as a universal model for civil government convincing from a biblical standpoint? A reading of Psalm 2 would certainly suggest otherwise:
Now there, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
The psalmist, as he is exhorting the rulers of the Earth to pay homage to the Son, highlights the binding nature of the Mosaic law, which extends beyond the boarders of Israel, vividly reminding us that the Mosaic law, as with all life within the covenant community of Israel, is inherently Christological in every respect.
Since Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the law and prophets, as the rightful King and heir of all creation (Col 1:15-20), the Israelites’ theocracy, contrary to Carter’s opinion, must, at least from a biblical understanding, be a universal model for civil government, since Christ is the fulfillment of not only Psalm 2, but the Old Testament canon as a whole. Carter’s insistence that the Israelites’ theocracy is not a universal model for civil government, based upon the insights of key reformed thinkers, is simply not convincing, given the broader Christology applications of the Israelites’ theocracy.
On the Matter of Carter’s perception of the Anti-Statism of Theonomists
Carter then proceeds to brand theonomists as having a perceived anti-statist outlook on broader society. He ties the so-called anti-statism of theonomists to their confession of sphere sovereignty, the understanding that all cultural spheres, the family, church, and state are self-governed under the transcendent authority of God’s law, while holding each other accountable under the rule God’s moral order, not the societal consensus. Carter’s conception of sphere sovereignty, however, leads to an ill-informed understanding of the way in which theonomists believe that Christians should engage with civil government. Carter maintains that sphere sovereignty teaches that “there are various spheres of life (family, church, government, etc.), each with their own responsibilities and authority; and particular spheres should not interfere in the sovereignty of other spheres.”[4] Carter’s interpretation of sphere sovereignty correctly highlights the independence of the different cultural spheres, but neglects to explain the liberties, which the different cultural spheres possess, in terms of the transcendent jurisdiction of God’s moral order, leading him to conclude:
In most theonomic models the scope of responsibility given to the state is extraordinarily modest and a great deal of rhetorical energy tends to be directed at pushing the civil government into an ever smaller and smaller sphere. Thus, theonomists are generally categorized as libertarian and anti-statist.[5]
Carter’s perception of sphere sovereignty, consequently, informs the anti-statist rhetoric that he believes is typical of theonomists. But to be fair, I am not convinced that a thoughtful theonomist would deny the value of civil government as a legitimate structure in God’s universe. Carter equates the anti-statism of theonomy with small government and libertarianism. He, therefore, labels theonomists for advocating militarism, and triumphalism, and an American style of democracy that advocates for “cultural and societal change through the coordinated practice of statecraft” — Carter, in writing this, erroneously believes that theonomists have “become impatient with the slow growth of the kingdom through the traditional means of evangelism, witness and prayer.” Carter even offers a quote from Joe Boot as a means to exemplify the so-called anti-statism of theonomists: “A Puritan, theonomic missiology is fundamentally anti-statist because that is the way the Bible is.”[6] But a quote such as this cannot definitively prove that Boot or any other theonomist has an anti-state disposition. In fact, Boot writes the quote within a broader section that honors the structure of the state, while questioning the humanistic direction of the secular state.
Just because Boot questions the humanistic direction of the secular state does not necessarily mean that he is anti-statist in the sense that he would deny the legitimate structure of civil government. Boot’s concern, here, has to do with the humanistic direction of the secular state, which claims autonomy from the transcendent rule of the Triune God — in this sense, he is not anti-statist as Carter is describing. Boot observes, by way of implication, that “authority comes from God alone and not the state, as ‘the people’ enlarged.” If we read the example from Boot’s writing, which Carter gives in the effort to claim that theonomists are anti-statist, readers will recognize that Boot is actually confronting the unaccountable overreach of the secular state, which asserts the autonomous rule of the state by the people, instead of, a worshipful direction of society that submits to the wise governance of the Triune God. Submission to God, as Boot observes, is indicative of the wise governance which marks the foundation of Canada, which is grounded on Psalm 72:8 — “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!” In Matt. 28, Jesus claimed total authority over heaven and earth, meaning that all spheres of reality worshipfully submit to the Lordship of Christ as an act of heartfelt worship. No Christian would deny the totality of Christ’s government over creation, and should, therefore, uphold the statesman’s accountability to Christ as an act of worship, which can only be realized through the proclamation of the gospel and the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Boot is, therefore, not exerting an anti-state attitude as Carter is claiming. He is confronting the apostate direction of the humanistic state, which asserts the governance of the people’s will over God’s will. Boot observes:
Democracy is only as good (or useful) as the people and their submission to God’s covenant; it is not a good in itself as though participation of the people in government assures us of truth, righteousness, and freedom prevailing. Democracy can function as the tyranny of the 51% if cut loose from truth and righteousness. Democratic institutions can slow down the advance of tyranny, but cannot prevent it. It is ironic in our time that the louder people shout about freedom, the less free they have become. People can quickly consent to what is evil and a culture swiftly become corrupt even if ‘democratic.’[7]
Carter’s conclusion that theonomists are anti-statist is, therefore, unfounded and unconvincing as Boot is actually confronting the direction of the apostate state under the humanistic banner, which unrepentantly asserts that “man is the measure of all things”.
Boot, in contrast to Carter’s conclusion, does not promote an anti-state attitude. The goodness of civil government as a structure, as Boot points out, is determined by its covenantal relationship with the God of scripture, so to suggest, from Boot’s writings, that theonomists resort to militarism, and triumphalism with an American style of democracy that advocates for “cultural and societal change through the coordinated practice of statecraft,” without reference to the Triune God, is a gross misrepresentation of Boot’s writing and the theonomist position on the Christian’s relationship to civil government.
On the Matter of Carter’s view of Post-Millennialism
Carter’s eschatological views will do little to encourage thoughtful readers to questioning the merits of theonomy as his own understanding of the end times comes across as undecided. Though Carter openly rejects Post-Millennialism, it is difficult to pin his thinking on the last things. Basing his eschatology on Matthew 13:24-30, Carter writes: “My own eschatology has settled somewhere between the extreme pessimism and retreatism of my dispensational childhood and the extreme optimism and activism of my theonomistic friends.”[8] Carter’s wording, here, is both vague and imprecise, leaving readers to wonder how his description, settled somewhere, communicates a clear and thoughtful grasp of his position.
Carter states that he is not a Post-Millennialist, but his explanation of his own eschatological position here shows him going back and forth between his dispensational upbringing and the optimism of theonomy. Though he appeals, as mentioned, to Matthew 13:24-30, where he concludes from Jesus’ parable that “the world will get better and worse until the end,” readers are left with a vague eschatological description, which renders the further assertions, related to his eschatological position, ill-thought-out and unconvincing.
Carter, for instance, states, “the Gospel is the Good News about the victory Jesus won. We are witnesses and heralds to that victory, and nothing more.”[9] Readers might not be easily convinced by Carter’s argument that Christians are nothing more than witnesses based on an eschatological position that is settled somewhere between dispensationalism and theonomy, two distinct and polarizing eschatological interpretations. Carter would do well to offer a clear and decided definition of his own eschatological position if he is desiring to convince his readers to reject the merits of Theonomy, based on his rejection of Post-Millennialism. Carter’s claim that he is not a Post-Millenialist is, therefore, not an argument that would persuade readers to question the merits of theonomy.
On the Matter of Carter’s Perception of Theonomists and Accusatory Rhetoric
Carter equates the confrontational tone of theonomists with an unwelcome accusatory rhetoric toward cultural institutions and the broader reformed community. Such a rhetoric is, in Carter’s view, strongly associated with a presuppositional apologetic. Theonomists, according to Carter, have not gained a prominent voice at the Protestant table because, in his opinion, they avoid ‘polite theological discourse’ by engaging in accusations, instead of fostering an environment that nurtures learning.
Carter, by way of example, deems some of the remarks made by Joe Boot toward Michael Horton’s position on culture as accusatory, ‘unbiblical,’ and ‘retreatist.’ But are these remarks reason enough to label Boot as accusatory? An accusatory tone would not leave room for compliment or charity, but Boot’s discussion on Horton’s thinking on culture does not fully reflect the accusatory tone that Carter is describing. While Boot is certainly critical of Horton’s understanding of culture, he exemplifies intellectual integrity in crediting Horton where credit is due, acknowledging that Horton is “a faithful evangelical scholar.” In fact, Boot goes on to highlight the commendable aspects of Horton’s thinking on soteriology, writing:
Horton clearly loves old evangelical soteriology and wants to preserve its faithful declaration, which is a necessary and noble task. Equally he does not want the church to lose its focus on heralding the good news of redemption visibly represented by the sacraments of the church. With all this, I can heartily agree.[10]
While Boot does confront Horton’s truncation of the gospel, he does so in the spirit of charity and decency, while acknowledging his faithfulness to the gospel. Boot is in no way questioning the legitimacy of Horton’s confession, a tactic that would be commonplace for an accusatory tone.
All Christians, to some degree, battle the temptation to be overly accusatory and critical, but such dispositions do not discredit the concerns over theological error in the effort to herald the truth. Jesus and the Apostles repeatedly confronted error in the effort to proclaim the Kingdom, and many turned away: people will, unsurprisingly, reject the message that we proclaim, and the modern context is no exception to this. Carter’s effort to discredit Theonomists for having an overly accusatory tone is, therefore, diminished by the charity that Boot exemplifies toward Horton, while confronting a truncated understanding of the gospel.
Conclusion
Paul Carter introspectively explains his views of theonomy, but his discussion does not offer his readers with grounded and convincing reasons as to why they should question the theological legitimacy of theonomy. No thoughtful Christian, wanting to remain faithful to the inerrancy of scriptural revelation and Christ’s universal Lordship, could consistently reject the premise of theonomy, that God’s moral law has an abiding jurisdiction over every sphere of life as the dominion of Christ’s Lordship is universal (Rev 1:5). Certainly, Carter’s expressed point of view on theonomy does not warrant excluding theonomists from positively contributing to the broader theological discourse, related to matters, such as, the application of Mosaic law, the nation of Israel as a model of modern civil government, a scriptural outlook on the modern state, eschatology, and rhetorical etiquette. Thoughtful readers might understandably perceive Carter’s treatment of theonomists as elitist, exclusionary, and uncharitable, dispositions, which are not in keeping with the biblical ethic. Though theological debate is to be expected, all Christians must submit to the reality that the work of Christ, not the theological consensus of the broader reformed and evangelical community, qualifies all, who faithfully confess his name, a place at the Protestant Table.
[1] My thanks to Paul Carter for inspiring this title: https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.
[2] https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.
[3] See Joseph Boot, The Mission of God.
[4] https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.
[5] https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.
[6] Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 271.
[7] Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 271.
[8] https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.
[9] https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.
[10] Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 379.