[Vision2020] A Brief Taxonomy of Christian Reconstructionism

[News of Christ Cult]

 A Brief Taxonomy of Christian Reconstructionism  I've had a number of
people referring to Doug Wilson as "not a Reconstructionist," not least
among them his own daughter-in-law, Heather. This needs to be taken into
consideration. So, I'm going to take some time clearing up the terminology
I'm using and why. To a certain extent, this will be a history of a movement
you don't care about, but should. Bear with me.

First came Cornelius Van Til, an otherwise obscure Dutch theologian. Though
he rejected the political claims of the Reconstructionsits, he formed the
basis of Reconstructionist apologetics, which are, esesntially: "We must
assume that the Christian God exists, becaus the existence o the Christian
God is a precondition of reason." We'll call this "presuppositionalism."

Then came Rousas Rushdoony, an Armenian immigrant who thought democracy was
heresy, homosexuality was a capital crime, and the Holocaust was a lie.
Though not particularly effective in implementing his ideas, he did
influence people, like Marvin Olasky, who did have an influence -- some time
later -- on American policy. You may remember "compassionate conservatism."
That was Marivn.

"Christian Reconstructionist" is an inside term, used to describe a living
movement as well as a theology. Fortunately, it's not a large living
movement, and any discussion of it needs to keep in mind that its founder,
Rousas Rushdoony, was a crank and compulsive schizmatic. For most of his
life, "Christian Reconstructionism" was largely synonymous with his think
tank, the Chalcedon Foundation. Andrew Sandlin, Gary North, and Greg Bahnsen
all, at various times, worked for the Chalcedon foundation, and all, at
various times, had fallings-out with Rousas Rushdoony.

All of this is going on within the context of the most hardcore of the
hardcore Calvinists in America -- the parts of the Presbyterian church that
broke off from the national church during the Civil War. Many "Orthodox"
Presbyterians still feel the old wounds of the Civil War, and endorse the
medieval structure of landowners/tenants/slaves. Though the League of the
South didn't initially arise out of this milieu, the racists over at
Badlands and Steve Wilkins most certainly did. Later, the LotS would be
co-opted by racists and theoconfederates, but that's a different story.

How does this have to do with Christ Church? Peter Leithart, faculty at New
Saint Andrews College, wrote the Weekly Standard's glowing obituary of
Rousas Rushdoony. Doug Jones, of Credenda/Agenda, wrote an equally glowing
obituary of Greg Bahnsen. Andrew Sandlin is currently in a dispute with Doug
Wilson over Auburn theology. Marvin Olasky gets in slap-fights with Doug on
the blog of his newsmagazine, *World*. Wilkins appears with Wilson at
conferences where Wilson decides on the participants.

Christ Church's attorney endorses making the most shocking parts of Old
Testament Law<http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/your_eye_shall_not_pity.htm>the
law of the United States. Doug supports restricting the franchise to
male heads of household. Doug defends slavery as a necessity. I have made it
quite clear why I find all of these things unacceptable. Insofar as he
differs with other Reconstructionists, he differs from them on pedobaptism
and "Federal Vision" theoogy. These are doctrinal trivialities.

I'm at no risk from the policies that Reconstructionists recommend, unless
they suddenly become advocates of enforcing Biblical restrictions against
conversion and blasphemy as strictly as they intend to enforce those against
homosexuality. I have cordial relations with many of them. I don't
necessarily believe that all are evil: many of them, I think, are engaged in
a game of moral "chicken" -- a competition to see who can be the most
faithful to the most inhumane ideals -- and would flee from them rather than
see them actually implemented.

But it's not myself that I'm worried about, and it's not the personal
conduct of the Kirkers. There are people that have been explictly
threatened. And though I have received enough trite reassurances that Christ
Church has retreated from the politics of power to the politics of the
Trinity, I am not reassured by the fact that their policies would only be
implemented if they held a majority: there is a reason that our system
protects minorities, and this is it.

Until they take genocide and disenfranchisement off the table as options,
it's my responsibility not to speak to them, but about them; to see them,
insofar as I can, excluded from the spectrum of reasonable debate. It is
ridiculous, in the 21st century, that I would have to say this, but
banishment is not an equitable compromise between stoning and not stoning,
and democracies should not be run by individuals whose goal is the abolition
of democracy.
 *posted by ACS [Link]
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/12119958547959999754>at 6:55
PM <http://f-words.blogspot.com/2006/06/brief-taxonomy-of-christian.html>*

-- 


Juanita Flores
Advocate for the Truth from Jesus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070320/dd87d7d9/attachment.html