I want to start by making one thing clear that my ethics are as all Christians "theonomic." By this I mean the following;
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-ethical-basis/ "Dr. R.C. Sproul notes that Christian ethics are theonomic, that is, governed by God’s law. This does not mean the church is called to institute a theocracy in the civil realm. It does mean that no correct ethical decision can be made apart from reflection on God’s law. Many Christians neglect the study of the law of the Lord, but if we do not seek to understand His commandments, we will lack the wisdom needed to discern between right and wrong in our decisions."
Or as explained in more detail below;
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basics-ethics/
"According to Scripture, ethics are theonomic — determined not by the self but by the Lord. God’s standard alone provides the absolutes for our conduct.
This standard exists outside of us and is binding upon all, regardless of whether or not one believes Scripture.
All men, because they are in Adam (Rom. 5:12), are bound by the covenant of works and will be judged according to their obedience. We may choose to disregard this relationship’s obligations, but we cannot destroy them.
Scripture reveals to us a transcendent law that remains binding upon all and is based on our Creator’s holy character. These stipulations do not exist outside of Himself; they are part of His eternal nature. This law, often known as the moral law in the Reformed tradition, is the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) and can be found in the Ten Commandments and in the ethical imperatives of the apostles.
Finally, when we say all Christians are theonomic, we are not endorsing theonomy, a movement that says the old covenant’s civil penalties remain in force. Believers may legitimately debate this issue, but all must be “theonomists” in the sense of affirming the permanent validity of God’s moral standards (1 Cor. 6:9–10).“
Thus I am a small t "theonomist,” in the sense of affirming the permanent validity of God’s moral standards (1 Cor. 6:9–10). However, I am not a "theonomist," in the sense used by The "Theonomy movement." The latter use of the term was inappropriately and inaccurately taken to mean Reconstruction or taking Dominion by misapropriating Van Til. https://feedingonchrist.org/theonomy-two-kingdom-and-a-middle-road/
"Cornelius Van Til, the great Reformed apologist from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, boldly asserted that there was no such thing as “natural law,” rather there is only God’s law. He even went so far as to say “you are either autonomous or theonomist.” He did not mean what the movement says he meant. Van Til was simply asserting that God’s word is authoritative for every sphere of life. What the (Reconstructionist/Dominionist) theonomists miss in Van Til’s theology is the role of common grace in regard to the moral law and politics. Van Til constantly pointed out the fact that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, were written on the heart of all men by nature. While men hate the fact that they are the Imago Dei, they can never escape the implications of the fact that they descended from Adam and had a conscience that bore witness to the law of God (Romans 2:15). How could ungodly governements enacted righteous laws throughout the centuries? This is where Van Til’s empahsis on common grace comes in. Paul could say of Nero that he was God’s minister to punish evil and reward good–not because he was reading the Bible and implementing the Old Covenant civil law, but because he was made in the image of God and by common grace acknowledged to some extent right and wrong in God’s world."
I agree we have a Kingdom of Man and A kingdom of God as stated in the classical idea of Reformed 2 Kingdom theology. That the Kingdom of Man or those that claim a Nutrality that really does not exist is ever going to bring about a Christian Golden Age prior to or laying ground for Christ's return.
Yet, I cannot agree with modern or as sometimes called Radical 2 Kingdom theory that states Christian's should not have any impact on the governments they live under. I think this is taking what was a much needed separation of Reformed Faith from The Reconstructionist/Dominionist movements and taking it to another extreme of Christians having no impact on the structures of the World.
Instead I think a middle ground needs to be forged. One that acknowledges theonomic ethics (AKA God’s laws and word as still binding on us), but, does not equate that with a Theocratic take over or enforced Christiandom. I wish for the People of God to have a say over our societal structures, but, not make the government into a forced conversion arm of The Visible Church.
I am not completely behind the Neo Calvinism/Neo-Kuyperianism train either. Although I completely agree with Kuyperianism when it states;
"There is not one thumb’s width in the whole domain of human life which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, “Mine!”
I find that most modern day Kuyperianism becomes a justification for a sort of Sphere Libertarianism. Instead of different spheres held together by enforcement of The State law. It becomes an excuse for absolute autonomous spheres with no regard for how they interact or how government regulations are needed to prevent chaotic insanity.
In reality of course Kuyper himself was in favor of a middle way between Capitalism and Socialism. Which included government regulations and even tax payer funding of the different spheres to provide safety nets against the raviges of unregulated and exploitative forms of markets. https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/the-point-of-kuyperian-pluralism/
https://calvinistinternational.com/2014/02/03/kuyperian-politics/
https://people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/kuyperp.html
He did not see his spheres as being unconnected or autonomous zones which the State just left alone to be lassiez faire. He was both for the state to not dictate the thoughts and actions of individual consciences within each Sphere and for the The State to enforce its laws as any government needs to. For example, the state had to be there to step in when a Sphere was abusive or coercive in some form. Or if overriding regulations were needing enforced for all of society to function together.
Many Neo-Kuyperianism proponents are instead drawn to a form of Libertarianism. Or slide into complete dominionism based on a highly deformed Theonomic Theocracy (vs the original meaning of simply God's Law or morality) with old Testament punishments for breaking OT Mosaic laws.
I think an answer can be found not in Radical 2K theology nor in any form of dominion theology. However, instead in what is called Christian Democracy. Which is democratic and Christian at the same time. In fact, the term Christian Democrat is exactly what Kuyper eventually called his new Party following the eventual disolving of his Anti-Revolutionary Party.
https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/editorial-join-the-anti-revolutionary-party/
In Christian Democratic political theory, the concepts of Solidarity, Subsidiarity, Sphere Sovereignty, and Stewardship are relevant.
The teaching of Solidarity emphasizes the interdependence of human beings with one another. It emphasizes our responsibility to care for one another without regard to race, ethnicity, or nationality.
Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty are two other related concepts that are emphasized within Christian Democracy. The belief that that family, local communities, and voluntary associations are the first guarantors of human dignity and cultivate mutual care gives rise to the principle of Subsidiarity, which holds that higher order institutions, such as federal government, should support and serve, not supplant or unduly control, these institutions that are closer to the people they serve.
Sphere Sovereignty likewise emphasizes the fact that each major area of human activity – family, faith community, workplace, state, etc. – is a distinct sphere with its own responsibilities, competencies and authority, and each sphere of life is separately balanced, both independent and interdependent, with the others.
Stewardship, or Creation Care, emphasizes the responsibility of humanity to look after the environment that offers us the resources that we use in everyday life.
In order to prevent the monopolization of power, as well as to encourage ingenuity, while still pursuing the common good and social welfare, Christian democrats have historically advocated a social market economy in contrast to a government-controlled command economy. This social market approach represents a third way between socialism and a laissez faire economy, combining free enterprise with government regulation. To this end, Christian democracy has advocated for ensuring that workers have a day of rest, a living wage, and leave for familial responsibility.
Christian Democracy parties run on platforms guaranteeing that religious values and views are protected within society while also supporting Christian informed legislation against rampant enforced Secularism.
While I think they do not go far enough on some social ills within current existing Christian Democracy parties. Nor do I think they take God's Law as serious as they should. A Christian Democracy like platform would be a great push in the right direction. An excellent middle way between the extreme of Radical 2K theology and the highly deformed Domionism turning theonomics into Theocracy on the other.
This does not call for another new Party to start up, but, instead it could be within the existing parties. However, I would say the conservatism parties would probably be better breeding ground for such a movement.
