[Vision2020] Re: Divisiveness

[Andreas Schou]

> Andreas asks:
> >Could you explain how the Christ Church attitude toward
> > Christian education differs from Gary North's?
> 
> First, Christ Church has many divergent answers to the questions 
> that you
> ask. I don't know whether there is an "official position", but I'm 
> not a
> spokesman for Christ Church.
> 
> Second, the Reconstructionists were notorious for thinking within 
> politicalsystems. Christ Church has put itself squarely in the 
> Trinitarian rather
> than that power tradition.

I'm baffled, Dale.

Peter Leithart wrote the Weekly Standard obit for Rousas Rushdoony. One of Doug's most common citations is of Cornelius Van Til. Wilkins and Grant, who publically affiliate themselves with Reconstructionism, are coming up for the C/A Conference in February. Canon Press books are promoted and sold by Christian Reconstructionists. It seems as though, even if Christ Church isn't Reconstructionist, it certainly shares its foundations with Reconstructionism as a whiole.

The only difference I can see between Doug's theology and the theology of other Reconstructionists is Doug's little disagreement with other Presbyterians over 'Auburn Theology'. This, to an outsider, seems like a silly little spat over the practice of pedobaptism and the timing of communion -- ritual technicalities.

Christ Church is quacking -- as loudly as it can! -- like a duck. If it's not a duck, then what is it? Is there some fundamental difference between theonomy and Reconstructionism which I, poor heathen that I am, can't see? Or is there some disconnect between Doug's theology and theirs which I don't understand?

-- ACS

P.S. I suspect this would be better answered by Doug himself, or by one of the other elders, than by Dale. But if Dale knows, I'd be interested to hear from him as well.