When Doug Wilson was asked about Luke Saint’s book, The Sound Doctrine of Theocracy, specifically how Saint discusses the merits of public stoning over other forms of capital punishment, Wilson responded with these words: “I tend to think of works like this as sort of a poison pill that gets included with mainstream theonomy in order to scare people away from the central idea.”
A “poison pill” is a business tactic used to discourage others from taking over a company. The idea is that the company is made to appear unattractive, thus repelling any investor or would-be acquirer. It reminds me of the only Full House episode plot I remember. Danny is trying to sell the family’s beloved home, and the children embark on a “poison pill” operation to make the house appear unattractive. Teddy uses a water gun to simulate a leaky roof, Comet and other dogs pose as vermin, and D.J.’s room is made to appear slanted. For some reason that episode has stuck with me.
In any case, Wilson tends to view a book like The Sound Doctrine of Theocracy as sort of a poison pill that is meant “to scare people away from the central idea” of theonomy.
In a recent piece over at Blog & Mablog entitled “A Florilegium of Prudential Observations, Gathered from My Own Head, Concerning the Propriety of Theocratic Blasphemy Laws” Wilson briefly returned to the public stoning issue when he wrote, “Then there are doctrinaire rigorists, who want to implement everything all at once, and if we must start somewhere, it should be with public stonings.”
In analyzing Wilson’s words, one must remember that his rhetorical flourishes can sometimes overshadow his literary clarity. Is this a mere Wilsonian figure of speech, or does Wilson truly believe that there are theonomists who want to start the implementation of biblical law with public stonings in modern America?
If they are out there, I don’t know any of them.
For example, Luke Saint, in his “poison pill” of a work, writes, “A Theocracy will not be voted in by a godless society. The issue of injustice is primarily a sin issue, and without a righteous church and family, we cannot expect Deus ex machina.”
In my book, Seven Statist Sins, I make a similar appeal: “Given the current condition of America, Christians ought not call on the civil government to execute idolators without first restructuring our judicial system. The current (statist) civil structure and man-made law code is not capable of integrating the biblical law against idolatry. Our current civil leaders have openly rejected Christ and biblical law in the civil realm and are largely idolators themselves. There is hope that we might see change, even among our current civil rulers, for ‘with patience a ruler may be persuaded’ (Proverbs 25:15), but a sweeping transformation of priorities, beginning with the common man, is required prior to the implementation of God’s righteous laws. In the meantime, we should continue to preach both the law and the gospel, but we ought not to hope for a top-down enforcement of biblical law. The implementation of God’s law requires a righteous people who will have the conviction to purge evil from the land (cf. Deuteronomy 17:7). The gospel, however, can effect such sweeping transformations. It has happened before, and it can happen again.”
In this regard, it appears that both Saint and I are in general agreement with Wilson’s main point from his recent article: “Until we know how to restrain the institution most given over to blasphemy, we are not to…entrust that institution with the power of coercion over private citizens.”
Wilson’s piece is, by his own admission, a disorganized, scattershot reply to concerns with his book, Mere Christendom. Be that as it may, intended or not, Wilson’s wordsmithery is not without effect. Those of us who merely wish to publicly discuss the application of God’s Law (which, as I understand it, is the “central idea” of theonomy) are sloppily lumped in with an imaginary group of Reformed theonomists who want to call on a statist government to enforce biblical law in a top-down manner.
Prudence and Patience
It seems to me that Wilson is arguing that prudence requires us to tread carefully when we begin discussing (?) the implementation of biblical law. As far as it goes, I agree that we should tread carefully when we study and wrestle with the implementation of anything from the Bible, civil laws or otherwise. But tread we must. Step by step, line by line, sermon by sermon, conversation by conversation.
Notwithstanding the words I quoted from my book above, I suppose if there was ever a “doctrinaire rigorist” who wanted “to implement everything all at once,” I would come close to it. A very good friend of mine sent me Wilson’s article and noted that it addresses my desire to deal with every issue right now. Given that Wilson does not list a “doctrinaire rigorist” by name (which would have been beyond helpful), I will insert myself for the sake of trying to apply his scattershot article. (My qualifications: I did write the foreword to the aforementioned “poison pill” book.)
I am sometimes accused of “leading” with obscure, low-priority issues – the biblical death penalty for adulterers, the injustice of driver’s license fines, or the freedom that farmers should have to sell raw milk. (For the sake of applying Wilson’s article, we could add public stoning and the law against blasphemy.) But I reject that charge on two counts: (1) I do not “lead” with these things and (2) they are not low-priority issues.
What I seek to “lead” with – in any article, book, podcast, outreach, or interaction with a civil magistrate – is that Jesus is Lord. I agree wholeheartedly with Wilson when he writes, “Whatever we do, it needs to be because Christ is Lord, and not because we have copped the pose of a studied neutrality.” The idea of “liberty of conscience” (or freedom of religion) must be subservient to Christ’s lordship. And because Jesus is Lord, we must teach the nations to observe all things that he commanded. We must seek to declare the whole counsel of God (cf. Acts 20:27). We are not to shy away from teaching and applying any portion of God’s Word. Wilson, of course, agrees with this, and so in the end, he simply remonstrates against…what?
I am not sure.
Based on his public response to the question about Saint’s book, and his dig at public stoning, I can only suppose that he thinks openly and publicly discussing what the Bible says about stoning, the execution of blasphemers, and other sundry laws, is not prudent at this time in church history. (After all, it’s not as if Saint called for, or has any ability to bring about, the immediate application of public stoning.)
For example, Wilson notes that “whether Servetus deserved to die or not, it was still a tactical blunder to execute him.” I’d say that little word “whether” is more important than that sentence appears to admit. He also writes: “Execute adulterers? Shoot, I would think we were making progress if we just excommunicated them. Instead we give them book deals. Judgment begins with the household of God (1 Pet. 4:7), and we have centuries of work ahead of us just getting our ecclesiastical water fowl in a row.”
I agree: We would be making progress if churches excommunicated adulterers. We’d also be making progress if churches got rid of their patsy pastors who shut down for Covid-19 and refuse to repent, but I digress. More to the point, we would be making progress if Christians simply agreed with God that the biblical law against adultery is good (cf. 1 Timothy 1:8). But how can we even get there if books like Saint’s which call us to faithfully consider the Bible (not clownishly call on the state to enforce every biblical law tomorrow) are deemed “poison pills”?
I submit that the “doctrinaire rigorist” who wants to apply everything all at once is a phantom. He does not exist. At least he does not exist in Reformed circles who take seriously the law of God and the work of regeneration needed to bring about societal transformation.
I also believe issues such as forced taxation, driver’s license requirements, and food freedom are not low-priority issues. If my neighbor is being wronged, either by a thug or a legislator, my silence is not prudent. I know many people personally who have committed no evil and yet are under the heel of the obese whore of civil government in America. It’s true I cannot fight every battle, but when a brother or sister in Christ chooses to stand up against the statist beast, I dare not remain silent when God’s Word has spoken to these issues.
Wilson’s final words call for patience: “The heart of reformation is patience.” Indeed, patience is important. But, as I often tell my friend, the churchmen and evangelists that go before the county commissioners, the legislators, and the sheriffs, calling on them to submit to Christ, are the patient ones. The men, like Luke Saint, who write books applying the law of God to statist America are the patient ones. The people who peacefully resist the tyranny of statist regulations are the patient ones. They know their ideas will be mocked, derided, and most often, ignored. They will even be deemed “poison pills” by allies. But they continue on, laying the foundation, preparing the church for the day when books extolling God’s commandments are not deemed poison pills, and those who love God’s Law are not considered “doctrinaire rigorists.”
Patience. Yes, patience.
Chris Hume is the host of The Lancaster Patriot Podcast and the author of several books, including Seven Statist Sins. He can be reached at info@thelancasterpatriot.com.
Comments 1