"Christians must learn to distinguish sins from crimes. If God reveals His will on a matter, disobedience is sin. If God reveals the civil penalty which must be applied, then it is also a crime. But without wisdom from Him on the civil penalty to be applied, the civil order must leave enforcement of God's law to the church, family, or the providence of God."
He further states that "when pornography is made and distributed, it should simply be used as evidence -- of the adultery or of the sodomy, etc." In his analogy between adultery/pornography and theft/movies showing theft, he laments, "Why do we resist punishing what God requires punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in Scripture?" In short, according to Wilson, because God in his word has *not specifically mandated* negative civil sanctions against pornography *per se*, "with a biblical approach, pornography would not be [a] crime."
It bears mentioning that not all modern Theonomists agree with Wilson that pornography is not a crime. For example, R. J. Rushdoony states, "the link between pornography and revolutionary totalitarianism is a necessary one. The rise of totalitarianism has always been preceded by moral anarchism... the politics of pornography is a moral anarchism whose purpose is revolution, a revolution against Christian civilization. . . . Certainly new and clearer legislation [against pornography--RB] is *necessary and urgently needed*. . . we need and must have sound legislation" (_Law and Liberty_, pp. 18-20; emphasis added). However, others, like Greg Bahnsen (cf. his cassette "Pornography, Obscenity, Censorship"), do concur that the making and distribution of pornography, generally, is not a crime. Regardless of some disagreement amongst themselves, the idea that the civil magistrate is limited by *explicit* biblical pronouncements in what and how he may punish is a teaching some *modern* Theonomists (as opposed to biblical "*historical* theonomists" like Calvin, Knox, Rutherford and Gillespie) have promoted for about three decades. In fact, some in the movement even suggest this "hyper-regulativism" (defined below) extends to the actual method of punishment, while others are content to apply it only to the crime and negative sanction itself. Either way, its proponents insist that their view alone provides an antidote to civil despotism by offering divinely prescribed limitations on the civil magistrate's power in punishing offenders of God's law. Such a view may sound pious, appeal to a libertarian mentality, and appear to be the only possible check against civil tyranny, but it is in opposition to God's revealed will and therefore must be rejected as just another form of modern heresy -- a heresy, which as Rushdoony notes above, actually helps usher in civil tyranny.
There are a number of major problems with Wilson's principles and their applications, and it may be helpful to survey some of these before giving a more full refutation from history and Scripture.
To begin with, on the pornography question Wilson (and other *modern* Theonomists) apply a *form* of "regulativism" (really "hyper- regulativism"; see below) where it does not belong -- i.e. in the case of negative civil sanctions. Ironically, many of these same people also deny (if only by their practice; James 1:22; Titus 1:16) the true regulativism where Scripture teaches it does belong -- i.e. in the public worship of God.
The regulative principle *of worship* has been skillfully handled in _The Songs of Zion_ by Michael Bushell, _Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God_ by John Girardeau and _A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ by George Gillespie, and reader is urged to consult these. For our purposes here, we simply note that the regulative principle, as taught and practiced by the Reformers, permitted only those acts of public worship which had "divine warrant from God's Word either by (1) command; or by (2) authorized example of the apostles; or by (3) good and necessary inference" (Greg Price, _Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship_, p. 5).
The imposition of anything God has not prescribed has long been *rightly* exposed and rejected in the area of *public worship* (cf. my _The Regulative Principle of Worship in History_ [free at: ht tp:// www.s wrb.c om/ne wslet t/act ualnl s/CRT PWors .htm] , my _Psalm Singing in Scripture and History_ [free at: ht tp:// www.s wrb.c om/ne wslet t/act ualnl s/CRT PsSin g.htm ] and my _Doug Wilson's Five Questions on the Regulative Principle of Worship Answered_ [free at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Doug5Qs.htm]).Wilso n and other *modern* Theonomists, however, take this approach not to *worship*, but to *negative civil sanctions*. As he says, "We do not have the capacity to legislate wisely where God has been *silent*" (emphasis added). Not only does he make a *fundamental* mistake in attempting to apply a form of the "regulative principle" to negative civil sanctions, he takes it one step further by misconstruing the regulative principle itself. Wilson's form of "regulativism" in the civil sphere denies "good and necessary inference" (an integral part of the true regulative principle), and therefore cannot be rightly called biblical regulativism without causing some confusion. Hence, I call Wilson's view "hyper-regulativism" because he makes the regulative principle *more strict* than do the Scriptures, or the Reformers who expounded this principle from the teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, Wilson's rejection of what Samuel Rutherford termed "logical or natural consequences," and what the _Westminster Confession of Faith_ (1:6) designates as that which "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture," (when applied to the pornography question before us) does not comport with the classical Protestant position on negative civil sanctions.
The combination of these errors by Wilson, in the distortion (through the denial of natural consequences) and misapplication of the regulative principle, actually turn the making and distribution of pornography into a *civil right* (except for certain *actual participants* who explicitly violate biblical judicial laws; i.e. those actually committing the acts of adultery, sodomy, etc. in the making of the pornography). Noted author and Reconstructionist-turned-Covenanter, Michael Wagner (who is presently completing his doctorate in political science), has defined one aspect of civil rights as "imposing an obligation on the state not to interfere with some aspect of an individual's life by applying negative civil sanctions." This definition, given Wilson's view of pornography, would grant most aspects of the pornography industry a *civil right* (based on Scripture falsely interpreted) to practice their vile trade freely, without any threat of civil punishment; and, according to ministries like _Credenda/Agenda_ (unless they disagree with their editor), such actions would have a kind of "civil blessing" from God, inasmuch as Scripture allegedly *forbids* negative civil sanctions against pornographers.
Even more, not only would the making and distribution of pornography be a civil right (and not a crime), but it would actually be a **sin** for the civil government to intervene and violate Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" in such cases (outside of "simply" using the pornography "as evidence -- of the adultery or of the sodomy, etc." in civil trials). Sin is "any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God" (_Westminster Shorter Catechism_ question and answer 14). By applying negative civil sanctions to the pornographers the civil government would be doing that which God has given them *no mandate* to do; and thus, in Wilson's scheme, the civil government would "lack conformity unto... the law of God" in punishing pornographers. As Wilson writes, "If God reveals His will on a matter, disobedience is sin;" and, "Why do we resist punishing what God requires punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in Scripture?" Therefore, if God has indeed revealed his will on this matter -- that most pornographers are *not* criminals -- then *for the civil government to treat them as such* is sin.
