I believe it depends on the view of the agency of man and God’s use of means in the eschatological framework. I’m postmil, but I believe that any revival or “reconstruction” of society will begin in the Church only after the hearts of individuals are changed and are more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces to tremble at the great threatenings of God and embrace His promises. I have seen many try to argue that changed hearts, reformation, revival, and then reforming the civil magistrate is a simultaneous effort, but, quite frankly, you can’t have a raw chicken, eat it, and not expect some sort of problem no matter how hard you may believe it is cooked.
Any sort of reconstruction that finds it’s roots outside of where the means of Grace are, or does not work ordinarily to embrace the promises of God as the means of Grace encourage us to do, is incompatible with Scripture and is a counterfeit eschatology as I see it. That sort of thinking is no different than having hope in the means, as even the vapid, material realization and hope of the promises of God as the Judaic zealots had, rather than what the means point to and sustain us for.
Theonomy has some flexibility in it’s definition as well. I believe the OT civil laws were bound up in Israel as a nation and died with Israel in 70AD, but that does not mean they don’t have a moral use to draw out principles of application of the moral law today. In this sense, I would be “theonomic.” Precepts come and go according to the general equity of nations within the bounds of the moral law (Exodus 21:1), but the moral law abides as it always has.
Rushdoony believed we are here to keep the OT laws better than Israel did as the “better Israel.” I believe this was a grave misunderstanding on his part.
