Theological Progress, Sanctification, & My Theonomic Roots
Hanging out with Maphet these past few days got my thinking about when I first came to Covenant, all hot-headed, stupid, and into this thing called Theonomy. While Maphet was neither hot-headed, nor stupid he was a fellow theonomist. So for that reason alone I liked him.
Well, now-a-days, I'm still hot-headed and stupid, but I'm not a Theonomist, and neither is Maphet. My point is, and its not a profound one in the last, is that people can follow rather interesting paths of ideological development that, if they're honest, is moved forward by experiences.
So during my stint as a California, I got to be friends with a group of Theonomists. Some of the bigger names in that camp. I visited with Dr. Rushdooney many times, and our family would have thanksgiving dinner with Rev. Andrew Sandlin (and his family) who I think more or less ran the Chalcedon Report (the theonomist magazine).
But, while I've grown decidedly un-theonomistic over the past few years (more for philosophical reasons than for theological ones), Andrew and I have still stayed in touch. I've more or less avoided the entire theonomic issue and so as Andrew. What's been fascinating is watching his development as a scholor and micro-cultural leader of sorts, and how broadly edifying his work has become.
By broadly I mean that he's writing things that people outside of the theonomic camp could find immensely encouraging. His recent piece for Father's Day is one such piece, even though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with his individual-oriented language.
Alright, that's an awful lot of context/backstory/commentary for a simple link to an article on the web. Well, its saturday, not as if that many folks are going to read this.
Josiah Q. Roe | By Josiah Roe | 7:19 PM
Comments
I guess you missed the article where Andrew officially declared the "Christian Reconstruction" movement to be dead?
Posted by: Becky at June 24, 2005 1:53 PM
Let me get this straight. You're not theonomic because of your philosophy? Why is your philosophy dictating your theology? Is this not the tail wagging the dog?
Posted by: Randy at July 5, 2005 11:40 AM
Is it not, Josiah? Is it not?
Posted by: mesh at July 5, 2005 2:11 PM
From a certain point of view perhaps, but I think that "spectrum" or "tension" or "dilemma" or whatever isn't real, or "isn't the best representation of reality" or something. Perhaps it all depends on your definition of "dog" and the word "is", right Huffine?
Posted by: JosiahQ at July 5, 2005 3:59 PM
