“Speaking Perverse Things” — More Perspective on the Old Perspective

Continuing our discussion of the Federal Visionists’ unique use of language to describe their movement’s agenda, we see that on December 23, 2006, Douglas Wilson once again recast the Federal Vision faction — this time backing away from their “agenda” to soft-pedal it as a “school of thought”:

In the course of the discussion, I made the point that this was nothing more than a simple continuation of the theonomy fracas in the Reformed world a couple decades ago. . . . First allow me to point to some points of continuity, seen most clearly in some of the players. Theonomists, because of their emphasis on the continuing validity of God’s law, were frequently accused of undermining justification by faith alone. Norman Shepherd was slated to be one of the original Auburn speakers until he was providentially hindered by the tragic death of his wife, and was replaced by John Barach. But had he been one of the speakers, the whole thing would have blown up, just like it did, only probably quicker. During the original Shepherd controversy, he had strong support among the theonomists — Greg Bahnsen and Gary North, to mention two. North even devoted an entire book — Westminster’s Confession — defending Shepherd. Other supporters of Shepherd included such notables as Cornelius Van Til. . . . From the front rank of the original theonomists we have Jim Jordan. From the second tier (of that day), we have men like Wilkins and Leithart. . . . Now, what’s different about this episode and the theonomy episode? I do not mean to claim that the theonomists have learned nothing, or have not modified their emphases. They most certainly have, and I actually believe that this is why the conflict has become even more intense. In the first round, the theonomy movement was an ideological movement, fueled largely by book publication. Once in a conversation with Greg Bahnsen, when I had explained to him why I was not theonomist, he made a helpful distinction for me. He said there was a difference between a movement and a school of thought. A movement is ideologically driven, has an explicit agenda, requires a movement leader, and so on. A school of thought encompasses people who share a broad number of assumptions, but are not necessarily in the same revolutionary cell group. . . . To apply this distinction, what has happened is this. The hardcore theonomy movement morphed into a broad theonomy-lite school of thought, and from there began to settle into particular communities, with a specific cultural embodiment. . . The concrete application has included scores of classical Christian schools around the country, a college (New St. Andrews), church communities that emphasize parish life together (Monroe, Moscow, and numerous others). . . . In short, we have moved from the time when a handful of outrageous men were saying crazy things on paper (the Old Testament is still in the Bible, the gospel will conquer the world, etc.) to a time when a number of thriving communities are being built on the pastoral assumption that all of God’s truths are designed to be lived, and lived in community. (“More to Being Reformed Than Believing in Jesus and Smoking Cigars”)

I quoted heavily from this post because it says a lot more than first meets the eye and, as usual, Wilson parses his words carefully, at the expense of truth.

First, notice how he defined the word “movement”:

In the first round, the theonomy movement was an ideological movement, fueled largely by book publication. Once in a conversation with Greg Bahnsen, when I had explained to him why I was not theonomist, he made a helpful distinction for me. He said there was a difference between a movement and a school of thought. A movement is ideologically driven, has an explicit agenda, requires a movement leader, and so on.

Accordingly, Wilson affirms that a “movement is ideologically driven, has an explicit agenda, requires a movement leader,” etc., but at the same time, notice that he neglected to pinpoint the leader of the so-called theonomy movement. Now, certainly, Rushdooney got them off the ground; but after he functionally excommunicated his son-in-law Gary North, the “hardcore theonomy movement” set precedent, demonstrating once and for all how theonomists understand the Christian principle of peacemaking — split, divide, shun, and ignore. Consequently, the theonomists splintered into so many factions, so quickly, that no one man emerged as their “leader.”

Second, notice how Wilson made the smooth transition from theonomy as a movement to Federal Vision as “a broad theonomy-lite school of thought,” as though schools of thought are ideologically void, without leaders pushing agendas. Yes, I see the difference. Movements consist of an ideology manifested by an agenda advanced by a leader, whereas schools of thought consist of an ideology manifested by an agenda advanced by a leader. Thank you, Doug, for making this distinction.

Third, notice that Wilson made a quick jump from “a broad theonomy-lite school of thought” to “particular communities, with a specific cultural embodiment,” and at the same time he failed to note that prototype Federal Visionist society, the mother of them all — Tyler, Texas — as though theonomists never attempted to build a particular community with a specific cultural embodiment.

Of course, Gary North, James Jordan, and Ray Sutton took their party to Tyler, Texas, where they lifted their blueprint for reconstruction from Orwell’s 1984. In fact, they even managed to defraud a widow of several mites. And after embedding their boot prints on their devotees’ faces, the great theonomy experiment melted down like Chernobyl — leaving nothing but parched earth in its wake.

Interestingly, Wilson omitted these critical details when he described theonomy as a movement and leapfrogged to Moscow and Monroe as illustrations of theonomic-lite cultural embodiment. He also forgot to note the hardcore authoritarianism that has marked both communities since their joint-migration from theonomy to Federal Visionism, presumably because negative publicity would give potential recruits good cause to stay away from Moscow. And you must remember that the chief goal of the Federal Visionists is to “draw away disciples after themselves,” and “speaking perverse things” is their primary means of achieving this objective.