There is a certain temptation that exists for theonomists who like to meditate and analyze what the makings of a future theonomic government and society would look like.  Questions abound in the form of “In a theonomy, how would _______ work?” In their right place, these questions are well and good, as having a target to aim at is needed if one is going to realize an objective.

Indeed, Christians of all sorts have at least some conception of a future “ideal state”. But the temptation is to spend vast amounts of time and energy carefully calibrating a consistent and biblically coherent “utopia” while possessing little ability to discern a Christian ethic for the here and now.

The Beauty of a Coherent Christian Civil Order

We may even have broad agreement on the beauty of transcendent biblical civil law operating like a well-oiled machine with all its attendant functions working together in a complementary fashion.  Think of the hallmarks of transcendent biblical civil government:

• Biblical due process.
• Proportionate penalties.
• Just weights and measures.
• Uniformity / Impartiality under the law.
• Ethical / Religious tests for office holders.
• No civil government provided welfare state (socialism).
• Households are not punished for the crimes of an individual.
• Separation of powers (civil, ecclesiastical, family government).
• Regulative principle of government (highly limited government).
• No civil government, tax-funded system of “public education”.
• No inheritance tax, property tax, monetary debasement tax, etc.
• Restitution and / or whippings for various crimes. No mass incarceration.
• Differentiation of moral sin and civil crime (not all sin is punished criminally).
• Capital punishment for murder (including abortion), rape, adultery, homo-acts.
• Rejection of religious pluralism, prohibition of blasphemy and seditious activity.
• Open immigration for foreigners who abide by the laws of the land (Christian theocracy) and who do not act like moral or economic parasites.

A Body, Not a Toolbox: Why Piecemeal “Theonomy” Fails

But what does theonomy and Christian ethics look like during the transitionary period when Caesar is still in charge? Which parts of civil government policy should we advocate be in place in the immediate term? Today in the year 2026, can we selectively call for the immediate abolition of prisons and the release of all duly convicted murderers and rapists since long term incarceration is not a biblical penalty?  No, we should actively fight against this kind of foolish decision. Such is the predicament of being a theonomist in a pre-theonomy nation.

Biblical civil law is not a set of independent organs you can harvest at will.
You cannot transplant capital punishment into a host body that lacks due process and expect life. The body will reject it, or worse, the patient will die.

• Correctly identifying crime categories + no due process standards = organ rejection.
• Open borders + welfare state + religious pluralism = immune collapse.
• Education + State Control + Secular Humanism = reproductive failure.

Cherry-Picking God’s Law

This brings us to the word of the day.

Arbitransnomy.

Etymology:

• arbitrium: arbitrary, cherry picking
• trans: transition between states
• nomos: law, rule, governing norm

Definition:

An inconsistent or arbitrary approach toward the ethics of transition from one social order to another resulting in moral incoherence, factionalism, confusion, and impotence.

The Challenge:

Even if we have broad agreement on what a Christian social order would ultimately look like, we are not seeking transformation in a vacuum. We are not on a deserted island deciding from scratch what kind of society we would like to live in.

We are born into an inherited set of institutions, laws, and systems that produce both real goods and real harms in the present. These structures are not morally neutral, but neither will they suddenly disappear this side of Christ’s return. They shape daily life even as they remain in need of full-scale replacement.

As alluded to earlier:

– We do not want incarceration for duly convicted murderers and rapists. They ought to be executed. But in the meantime, we ought not seek to have all murderers released, even if imprisonment as a penalty is unjust.

– We don’t want civil interference as we travel the world or emigrate from one nation to another. We want to be generally welcoming to foreigners. But we are currently living within a religiously pluralistic nation which is also a massive welfare state. Should the entire nation of Somalia be welcomed into America to live off the government dole and bring their Islamic religion with them along with their particular cultural practices? Those who argue for open immigration without the dissolution of the others do not have a consistent framework.

– We don’t want to confer economic or political power and influence to economic or political entities that stand in public opposition to Christian virtue. But we have iPhones, use Amazon, and drink Coke (and if you don’t do any of these, there are countless others). Are we going to be consistent in how we approach these issues? Or will we condemn one and secretly engage in the other and pretend we have a coherent civil ethics framework?

Theonomy and Christian Ethics are not limited to the ideal end-state, but includes our manner of moral navigation inside an existing order that cannot simply be wished away. The task is not to pretend the current system is sufficient, but to act faithfully and consistently within it while seeking its transformation.

What Example Have we in Scripture?

The Apostle Paul did not wait for a righteous civil order before acting faithfully within an unrighteous one. He appealed to Caesar. A pagan, violent, idolatrous regime. Not because Rome was just, but because lawfully leveraging an existing authority could advance the Kingdom in that moment (Acts 25:10–12). Paul did not sanctify Rome by appealing to it, nor did he pretend its system was morally coherent. He used it without worshiping it.

Likewise, early Christians did not immediately abandon life within Caesar’s house. Some served in imperial households, administrative posts, and military roles even while confessing “Jesus is Lord”. A declaration that implicitly denied Caesar’s ultimate authority (Philippians 4:22). Their participation was neither capitulation nor endorsement. It was ordered faithfulness under constraint.

Scripture gives us more examples:

– Joseph governs Egypt without worshipping Pharaoh’s gods (Genesis 41).

– Daniel serves in Babylonian administration while openly defying its idolatrous demands (Daniel 6).

– Jeremiah instructs the exiles to seek the good of Babylon while awaiting its judgment (Jeremiah 29)

These examples show what arbitransnomy is not. Paul and the others did not bounce between lofty ideals while quietly smuggling in exceptions. They knew who their true Lord was, and they acted consistently within broken systems without pretending those systems were good or final. They worked inside what existed, without surrendering moral clarity or making excuses. Arbitransnomy does the opposite.

Tactical Absolutism

Rejecting arbitransnomy does not license sin for the sake of expedience. God’s law does not permit us to do evil in order to arrive at good outcomes, nor to call unrighteous means provisional righteousness. Faithfulness requires patience without compromise and prudence without pretense. But too often, Christians fall into error when everyone who has a different tactic than them is engaging in sin. These same Christians cannot live according to their own standards they set for others. They may loudly denounce the ethics of a voting for the lesser of two evils candidate in a federal election while they themselves continue to patronize businesses which act in opposition to Christ. Both are a form of volitionally conferring power and influence to morally compromised entities (whether economic power or political power).

Yes, some tactics are indeed sinful (“I’m going to send my child to an Islamic schools so they can evangelize the muslims”). But others are not and Christians of good faith can have different approaches.

There is far too much Arbitransnomy going on in discourse of Christian ethics. It’s muddling our collective witness. It’s a scourge in the pursuit of a coherent social order. It’s the proverbial plumber’s crack of contemporary Christian ethics. Christ is Lord of history. He is Lord not only of the destination, but of the road, the pace, and the cost of walking it.

At its root, arbitransnomy is not merely an intellectual failure but a moral one. It is the desire to enjoy the moral clarity of Christian norms without bearing the cost of ordering one’s life consistently under them. It inevitably leads to hypocrisy and factionalism.