So, if I don't precisely characterize agreement with Theonomy as a political and ethical theory, then I'm very, very sympathetic to it. But I don't know if I can really identify with the movement or not, because I'm not sure if the adherents to that view are extreme enough for me. I'll explain.

I generally think that it's a good idea to try hard to take my worldview to its logical end or extremes, and then ask myself, "Does this still seem true? Do I still agree with this?". If I find that the answer is "no", then I need to find out why. The way I see it, in that scenario I have a few options (which are not mutually exclusive): A) I'm making an emotional objection, not based on fact, B) I'm wrong about my source material, or C) my source material is wrong about reality. On the other hand, if examination yields that the answer is "yes", then it's very important that I apply these "next logical steps" to my life -- because truth matters.

So here's what I've been thinking. I agree with the Theonomists when they say that OT Law, with its fulfillment by Jesus Christ in mind, is the very same imminent morality which defines and divides all right from wrong, justice from injustice. We all agree that the Bible is the Most Just Law, as defined by The Perfect and Most Just Law Giver, God. It is for this reason that I do not agree with them when they say things to the effect that, "...therefore we need to restore America's adherence to the constitution".

I understand that they make this kind of statement on the grounds that the American constitution was drafted by Christians and based on Biblical principles. However, it seems to me that the constitution is on the one hand extremely vague, if it is indeed intended to bind people to the Biblical Law, and on the other hand it is contrary to Biblical law on certain points as I understand them (namely the religious test for office).

So, if our intent is to bring people in line with Biblical Law, then rather than saying, "...therefore we need to restore America's adherence to the constitution", it seems to me that a more productive statement would be, "...therefore we need to reform America so that its entire government conforms to the model defined for us in Holy Scripture."

The thing that brought this to my mind also serves as an example of the way this works out in practice. I was meditating to refine my worldview, and Apologia Chuch's campaign, #EndAbortionNow came to my mind. It's a righteous campaign with which I wholeheartedly agree on principle. Abortion should be ended "now, completely" and not "later, incrementally". But by what means?

Why do they appeal specific Biblical laws to a government which is not fundamentally Biblical? Granted, it may be "more Biblical" than other governments, and it may even be rooted in good intentions or Biblical sentiments, but I don't see any lawyer appealing to Scripture in his case, nor any member of the judiciary appealing to Scripture in his judgments. They appeal to the law of America, which is not the Bible because it is different from the Bible. So, when #EndAbortionNow petitions the government to conform its laws to Biblical Law, they petition it to make only a partial change, and they petition the government to utilize an extra-Biblical process (the American legislative process) to perform the change.

What they're doing, in effect, is campaigning for incremental changes to the government, as opposed to demanding the immediate implementation of Just Law. Sure, they don't want incremental changes in the area of Abortion, but by campaigning for the addition of individual laws to an inherently non-Biblical system, they're advocating an incremental change to the entire standard.

Now, in either case, there's a major road block in their way. The Government at this time seems to be comprised primarily of nonChristians, whereas God commands, "Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite." (Deuteronomy 17:15b). -- Now, bear in mind that the Bible defines elsewhere that "Israelites" are the Covenant people, descended from Abraham by Covenant and not by flesh (Romans 9:8). So the "Foreigner" in this scenario is any nonbeliever, and a careful examination of OT Law and prophesy reveals that this was, without a doubt, the original intent of the law, even in those days. -- So to demand that a government comprised of nonbelievers conform itself to Biblical law is a contradiction in terms. Either the entire government would have to first accept Jesus Christ as Lord, or the composition of the government would have to be replaced entirely.

That's what I'm suggesting. An outright rejection of the entire American government, in favor of small groups of Christians who establish their own local governments, derive their own currency from the Biblical standards for value and measures, and execute justice locally. To be clear, I do not advocate any kind of violence, nor any kind of subterfuge. No violence. No lies. No tricks.

Unfortunately, execution of Biblical law in such a community would eventually be contrary to American Law. Things would get quite complicated, and it might be very difficult to do it righteously.  If it can't be done righteously, then it shouldn't be done. What I long for, then, is a community isolated from secular supervisory forces which harm the innocent and penalize us for acting according to our conscience. A separate country; a new land, where the Biblical standards can be studied carefully and implemented directly as law.

"Behold, I long for your precepts...for my hope is in your rules."
"I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
    and shall not be put to shame,
for I find my delight in your commandments,
    which I love."
"When I think of your rules from of old,
    I take comfort, O Lord.
Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked,
    who forsake your law."
"The law of your mouth is better to me
    than thousands of gold and silver pieces."
"Let your mercy come to me, that I may live;
    for your law is my delight."
-- Excerpts from Psalm 119

[P.S. I'm adding this here so I don't forget. I had some thoughts about the fundamental principles of reason, or the Laws of Thought, as presented in scripture, notably starting with the Law of Identity.]