This will be a quick post, since I am at an Econolodge on the way to the diocesan conference. Let me do a quick cut and paste from the Wikipidea on a movement that has had much influence in American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. That movement is Christian Reconstructionism.
Christian Reconstructionism is a religious and theological movement within Protestant Christianity that calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of life. The beliefs characteristic of Christian Reconstructionism include:
- Calvinism, for its description individual spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit that is required to change people on a personal level before any positive cultural changes can occur,
- Theonomy applying the general principles of Old Testament and New Testament Law to the corresponding family, church and civil governments (compare with theocracy); opposed to church-state separation of any kind, believing the state is under God and is therefore commanded to enforce God’s Law, although advocate a separation of Church and State while agreeing with the other four tenets,
- Postmillennialism, the Christian eschatological belief that God’s kingdom began at the first coming of Jesus Christ, and will advance progressively throughout history until it fills the whole earth through conversion to the Christian faith and worldview,
- The presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til which holds there is no neutrality between believers and nonbelievers, that the Bible reveals a self-authenticating worldview and system of truth, and that non-Christian, non-Reformed belief systems self-destruct when they become more consistent with their presuppositions, (Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, pp. 145-6, 97, 315-6) or even the Scripture-based presuppositionalist views of Gordon Clark, and,
- Decentralized political order resulting in minimal state power and laissez-faire economics.
While theonomy proper was not adopted by the majority, one can see that most of its tenets are common in the Religious Right. Now, a caveat on points 1 and 4, most Christians in the Religious Right would agree with those tenets as stated without realizing that they come out of Calvinism and without agreeing with the rest of Calvinism. Point 3 would not be acceptable to most on the Religious Right. But, it is still impressive that four out of the five points of Christian Reconstructionism made it into the Religious Right. Please note on point two that there is a difference between theonomy and theocracy. Reconstructionists DO NOT WANT a theocracy until the Lord returns. I am not a Christian Reconstructionist.
The man credited as the father of Reconstructionism is a man named Rousas John Rushdoony. He was a very strict theologian as regards exegetical studies, and held fervently to the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura in the strictest Calvinist sense of that phrase. As a result, he came to a couple of conclusions, and you probably already know what they are. He concluded that slavery is permitted under certain conditions, since it is never forbidden in Scripture. And, he claimed that slavery in the South was basically benevolent, that is, he would have agreed with the arguments of Dr. Ross in my post from yesterday. I have read several Reconstructionist writers, and they agree with Dr. Rushdoony that slavery is permitted. That is, and here is the exegetical problem, the claim is based on a Sola Scriptura approach to exegesis. Since it was permitted and never forbidden, it is still permitted. Now, if you notice, I am no longer quoting authors from the 19th century, but rather authors from today.
So, here are my exegetical questions:
-
Is slavery basically good or basically bad?
-
If bad, why did God sanction it?
-
If good, can we someday return to slaves, provided we follow Biblical law on their treatment?
-
If slavery is bad, what about all the Christians who owned slaves? Were they guilty of extremely serious sin all through the centuries?
-
Is there the possibility that slavery, like polygamy (aha, remember the issues over women cited in the last post?) was permitted for a while and not counted as sin by God, but eventually outlawed and counted as sin by God? [In other words, neither was God’s will, but he permitted it while he was teaching people better.]
-
If you say that eventually both were counted as sin by God, can you explain it by a strict application of Sola Scriptura or are you forced to rely on some type of “the Church decided” argument? That is, does the Church really have the power to bind and to loose in some areas? And, if so, how do you keep the Church from going overboard in trying to bind and loose, which was the cause of the Reformation?
Just so you know, Cornelius Van Til denied Rushdoony. In a 1972 letter Van Til wrote: “Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in the principles I hold.” (Wikepedia article) I agree with Cornelius Van Til as respects Christian Reconstructionism.
[Important follow up note: I spoke to someone today and it reminded me to point out an important theological sub-point. Not all theonomists are dominionists. While I will not explain right now, a dominionist is a sub-set of theonomy. Moreover, many in the Religious Right are not formal theonomists, and would tend to be against a government run by “Christian” law per se. Remember that on point 2, some theonomists do agree with the separation of Church and State. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, the Religious Right has essentially come to agree with all but one of the major points of theonomy as outlined in the wiki article quoted above.]
I have had my run ins with this type of philosophy – I even held it for a while. But the slavery thing really bothered me. However, in an argument I made elsewhere just today, I think that ironically enough, for these type of philosophies to hold, (especially the economic ones, btw), one has to hold to a Pelagian anthropology, namely that given the right laws and principles, that never change, society will run just fine. I call this a pelagian anthropology, since it assumes that given the right conditions, mankind will just flourish. Even if the “right laws” are “biblically derived”.
But in two examples, Christ words and actions clearly presuppose a division – (Two Kingdoms): His answer to the Roman soldiers (Be content with your pay, NOT free all the peoples under your dominion and force them to adopt Jewish laws), and His answer to the Pharisees (Render unto Ceasar, NOT resisit all “unbiblical” taxes etc.).
This is not a split in our humanity – religious vs secular – but it indicates how the world is running, and our place in it. It does connect with the Lutheran view of vocation.
Maybe, and I have no idea if I’m way off here, that the specific MO of government etc (for instance) is Adiophora unless it clearly violates God’s commandments (like stealing a human, ie slavery)?
I did catch your comments viz a vie Pelagianism in your earlier post. I even commented to my wife on it as an important comment. But, time has been short lately (funeral, conference, new building, etc.). However, that particular comment is on my list of future things to talk about. I think you have a point there.
The problem in trying to build a governmental theory is the important question that the Early Church Fathers had to deal with. What happens when the majority of a country is Christian? The Founding Fathers of this country had to deal with the question of how to pull together a country with disparate elements coming from countries where religous wars were fought.
Breathtaking, Father, but very important: From the hierarchy-in-equality of the Trinity pre-creation to the reflection of the Trinity in pre-fallen, created humanity, to patriarchy and the master-slave relationship coming about as a result of the fall, to redemption and the establishment of the Church as an “ikon of the Trinity” in which structures the counciliar, synodal structures of service and authority may not be distorted without disastrous consequences.
You should write a book!
I’m not really sure how influential Rushdoony is, or has been, in the Christian Right. (I grew up in it, before it even had a name.) For example, in my experience, much of the CR is dispensationalist, pre-millenial Darbyites. Aside from that, it is interesting that the anti-state bias which is almost always present is anti-biblical. Further, any attempt to impose Christian morality on the population as a whole would require a very large, activist government. (Of course, a government mandated to enforce personal morality would have little time or resources to regulate the economy, which may be the whole point.)
Rushdoony as himself has not been very influential in the Christian Right. There were many in the Christian Right who jumped on him. The problem is that the Christian Right did not know that several of the main points of theonomy had come in and been adopted by the Christian Right.
Notice, for instance, that Rushdoony wrote some influential pieces on home-schooling and argued that Christian parents should begin pulling their children out of the secular system to prevent their contagion with secular thought. Coupled with this was the argument that Biblically the most proper people to train children were their parents. And, home-schooling has continued to make arguments precisely along those lines.
He also wrote several pieces arguing that the USA was a de facto Christian nation and that the Revolution had nothing to do with the Enlightenment, but rather was a conservative reaction to England. He stated that the Constitution only appears secular, but that was because Christianity was assumed as the religion of the land. Sound familiar?
But, yes, the one point of deep disagreement is that most in the Religious Right are pre-mil pre-trib whereas Rushdoony was anything but!
Is this brief Facebook post or a post to your blog?
Fr. Ernesto,
I am very familiar with reconstructionist writings, and was going to make more than a small comment here. I came back to make the comments and saw that you discontinued the series, then I realized I don’t have the energy right now to make those comments. A few things I will say, however.
The Reconstructionist movement is hardly monolithic. It’s ties to the Christian Right, as is most commonly understood by the rest of us, are loose theologically, although there are some personal relationships that are strong.
I’m happy to see somebody actually recognize the caveats of no’s 1 and 4. Much of the so-called “biblical world view” of the Religious Right stems not as much from biblical law as it does from the wrong assumption that conservative politics reflects a biblical world view. On point 5, decentralized power concepts of the Religious Right seem not to be applied to the criminal justice system, which is unfortunately why so many non-Christians are fearful of Christians’ involvement in politics.
The Ross quote could also be debated within Recon circles. I believe that Paul’s epistles don’t support slavery at face value, but rather he understood that slavery within the Roman system was so prevalent that a revolution was the wrong way to attack it. You’re a slave? Okay, that stinks, but let your behavior be such that your master will learn Christ. I believe Jesus’ instruction to his disciples about the Gentile’s lording-over system not being for us could also be applied to slavery.
Steve, if you ever decide to make a longer post, contact me and I can publish it under Father Orthoduck. He was designed to allow me the flexibility to publish longer comments by some of those who read this blog, but publish them as a post so that others can comment. Of course, I reserve a small right to edit a post and to add the famous small comment that the views herein reflected may not be the views of Fr. Obregon 🙂