The Anti-theocratic Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy theory remains the primary tactic of the progressive anti-theocrats. And, like most conspiracy theorists they retain sincere beliefs in their suspicions of subterfuge. In other words, they're not trying to deceive. They hold their theories with great sincerity.
The conspiracy tactic can be effective when contending with an insurmountable opponent. The great monolith of the Religious Right is riding a wave of massive momentum and contending with them issue by issue is difficult and time-consuming. This precipitates the need for a broader range of tactics.
While anticipating a great "October Surprise" in 2004, opponents of the Bush administration were instead served up a "November Surprise." The outcome of the 2004 election appeared value-based, leaving a fair amount of Kerry supporters wondering two things: 1) what happened to the national security issue, and 2) why in the world did so many Americans buy into the religiously informed platform of the GOP?
In all honesty, I was equally surprised. However, thinking back over the previous year, I could understand why values were of concern to the moderate voter. First, there was the hoopla over the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore's monument bearing the Ten Commandments. Then, in the winter of 2003 the ACLU was prosecuting several cases involving the removal of Christian holiday displays (e.g., nativities), and the singing of Christmas carols in public schools. To cap it off, by early 2004 the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to long lines of same-sex couples seeking legal matrimony.
All of this was televised nightly on the cable news networks. For several weeks moderate Americans watched men kissing men and women kissing women in the daily barrage of 24-hour news coverage. Compounding this was the perpetual whining of Michael Newdow to remove "under God" from the pledge and bar any religious overtones from the presidential inauguration.
Folks, it's just not difficult to see how all of this provided Karl Rove with the perfect fodder for securing Bush a second term. Although a great many Americans that voted for Bush were not religious, they were also not quite ready to change the Pledge of Allegiance or debate Christmas. They may also have been disturbed by the incessant images streaming into their living rooms of same-sex couples cuddling in the altars of San Francisco and Massachusetts. It was likely too much for moderate Americans to embrace.
Progressives should understand this phenomenon since they argued the very same thing in relation to the Iraq invasion. While the Bush administration was predicting our troops would be greeted with cheers and flowers the anti-war progressives cogently argued the preemptive invasion would become a recruitment tool for terrorism. They were correct.
Yet, they should bear in mind that might have been the problem in the last election. Many Americans felt the secularists were launching a preemptive strike on certain American traditions. Like Bush, maybe the ACLU also expected to be welcomed with cheers and flowers. This did not happen. Middle America embraced a conspiracy theory of sorts -- voting for a democrat meant losing Christmas. That's the unproven connection they made. That's the power of "Rove-ian" spin.
Getting back to my opening statement, how then can you contend with such conservative Christian momentum? Well, some help is provided through the self-sabotage of the republican machine. The recent indictments of Tom DeLay and "Scooter" Libby along with the ridiculous calls for assassination by Pat Robertson are needed ammunition for the progressive arsenal. However, this may not be enough.
An effective means to transforming mass opinion is to create outrage. This tactic bypasses the issue-by-issue means to changing policy by instead creating alarm in the minds of people via conspiracy theory. In this case, it's getting George Bush and James Dobson in a secret meeting for tea and tyranny with R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North. By creating such connections in the minds of the populace, along with the threat of an impending theocracy, progressives can hope to alter to course of public discussion. This may work for them.
As I mentioned, they do believe these things, although not in the simplistic, rhetorical way I've stated it. But, I think you get the point. They have, however, repeatedly stated that the reconstructionists are seeking an immediate political takeover in which an elite religious group will impose "our narrow view" of Biblical law upon an unsuspecting society. That is their definition of a theocracy. I rather agree with Rushdoony's definition:
As previously stated, the Chalcedon Foundation does not seek the political takeover of the centralized bureaucracy of the United States government. We never have and we never will. We have no political operatives undermining the legislative process. We do not line the pockets of lobbyists that plead our cause to weak congressional leaders. Nor have we created "front organizations" designed to perform our bidding indirectly. In a 1989 interview with the Christian Observer Rushdoony responded to the allegation that he sought control of state power:
But am I being deceptive in saying this? Am I cleverly hiding the fact that we do seek immediate political dominance by an editorial sleight of hand? That is what I'm often accused of. But, I think this suspicion arises from the perpetual miscommunication between the reconstructionists and the anti-theocrats. As an example, critics often cite select passages from reconstructionist literature that bear what they perceive as explicit statements of an immediate takeover. One such passage regularly cited is that by the late David Chilton:
This selection is taken from a larger paragraph that spells out a different emphasis as to where immediate attention is to be placed by the Christian:
One might argue that this is quibbling over words and terms. It appears that Mr. Chilton is still advocating a political takeover only after the Church is "restored," whatever that means. However, like Rushdoony, Chilton sees theocracy not as the centralized political rule of priests and pastors, but the rule of God over decentralized institutions "whose law code is solidly founded on the laws of the Bible" (ibid. p.219). Again, the accusation is still, "same difference" (i.e., the outcome remains the same).
This means, rather, that the progressives object to the rule of God more so than the rule of man. The present debate focuses upon reconstructionist elites seizing by stealth the present powers of governmental rule. This is not true, nor is it presently pursued. However, long term, we do envision a world in which every institution is governed by the law of God. But, it will take more than lobbying to get there. It takes generations of faithfulness on the part of God's people.
Yet, the unbeliever has no long term hope in history. For them, time is the constant opponent to their secular utopia. Revolution, then, becomes the chosen method to humanistic dominion -- "the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time" (Rev. 12:12). Oh, they would never admit to dominionist aspirations but that neglects the fact that dominion is an inescapable concept. Some ideology is going to rule over existing institutions. Whether humanism, Christianity, Islam, or Marxism, ideologies rule by default.
The Christian, however, embraces time as God's provision for the task of dominion. We need no revolution to accomplish our ends. Chilton states this plainly:
"See!" the progressive screams, "they're admitting to getting closer to their goal!" Not quite. Our opponents must understand our parlance. When the secularist hears, "getting closer," they perceive it to mean the near future. When a reconstructionist declares the rule of God is getting closer he or she is encouraging themselves for the long term process. You see, the early church suffered from the same issue of patience in light of a promised coming Kingdom:
The Biblical writers were constantly beset with the task of keeping the churches focused and faithful while the apostolic predictions of tribulation were prolonged. Therefore, the language used bears a sense that what is to come is imminent.
Reconstructionists have long used that same method. So, as Chilton declares that we are "closer to the realization of the knowledge of God covering the entire world," this must be set over against what he states on the very same page:
Technically, with the passing of days the fullness of the future Kingdom is nearer -- at hand. Christians then admonish one another to faithful application of God's law to their respective sphere because they know that future generations of the Church depend upon our obedience today. We are only here due to the faithfulness of millions of Christians throughout Church history.
Our secular critics should exert some effort in grasping this concept -- God knows we've exhausted ourselves in trying to explain it to them. Our hope is a future victory that will feature the comprehensive rule of Jesus Christ and His law-word over every inch of this world. We do not apologize for that. We also do not hide that.
However, to misinterpret our meaning as an immediate takeover of the present political process and institute an unwanted theocracy by the power of the sword is to tout a conspiracy theory. But, conspiracy theories are beneficial. They sell books, create mailing lists, garner blog visitors, and fill conference seats. Many a progressive pundit is making their bones via the phantom enemy of the covert theocrat. And, as eight years of the Clinton administration established the careers of right-wing radio giants like Rush Limbaugh, so George Bush and his politico-religious ally, the Religious Right, are helping to launch the vocations of the anti-theocrats.
Hegel was right. Thesis creates antithesis. I doubt, however, that a synthesis is around the corner. I anticipate syncretism instead - the Church aligning itself with the totalitarian state. In the immediate, the Chalcedon Foundation will serve a better purpose in admonishing the contemporary Church to discard Caesar's robes of ostensible authority and return to God's law. In this sense, our task is both educational and prophetic; it is not political.
The conspiracy tactic can be effective when contending with an insurmountable opponent. The great monolith of the Religious Right is riding a wave of massive momentum and contending with them issue by issue is difficult and time-consuming. This precipitates the need for a broader range of tactics.
While anticipating a great "October Surprise" in 2004, opponents of the Bush administration were instead served up a "November Surprise." The outcome of the 2004 election appeared value-based, leaving a fair amount of Kerry supporters wondering two things: 1) what happened to the national security issue, and 2) why in the world did so many Americans buy into the religiously informed platform of the GOP?
In all honesty, I was equally surprised. However, thinking back over the previous year, I could understand why values were of concern to the moderate voter. First, there was the hoopla over the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore's monument bearing the Ten Commandments. Then, in the winter of 2003 the ACLU was prosecuting several cases involving the removal of Christian holiday displays (e.g., nativities), and the singing of Christmas carols in public schools. To cap it off, by early 2004 the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to long lines of same-sex couples seeking legal matrimony.
All of this was televised nightly on the cable news networks. For several weeks moderate Americans watched men kissing men and women kissing women in the daily barrage of 24-hour news coverage. Compounding this was the perpetual whining of Michael Newdow to remove "under God" from the pledge and bar any religious overtones from the presidential inauguration.
Folks, it's just not difficult to see how all of this provided Karl Rove with the perfect fodder for securing Bush a second term. Although a great many Americans that voted for Bush were not religious, they were also not quite ready to change the Pledge of Allegiance or debate Christmas. They may also have been disturbed by the incessant images streaming into their living rooms of same-sex couples cuddling in the altars of San Francisco and Massachusetts. It was likely too much for moderate Americans to embrace.
Progressives should understand this phenomenon since they argued the very same thing in relation to the Iraq invasion. While the Bush administration was predicting our troops would be greeted with cheers and flowers the anti-war progressives cogently argued the preemptive invasion would become a recruitment tool for terrorism. They were correct.
Yet, they should bear in mind that might have been the problem in the last election. Many Americans felt the secularists were launching a preemptive strike on certain American traditions. Like Bush, maybe the ACLU also expected to be welcomed with cheers and flowers. This did not happen. Middle America embraced a conspiracy theory of sorts -- voting for a democrat meant losing Christmas. That's the unproven connection they made. That's the power of "Rove-ian" spin.
Getting back to my opening statement, how then can you contend with such conservative Christian momentum? Well, some help is provided through the self-sabotage of the republican machine. The recent indictments of Tom DeLay and "Scooter" Libby along with the ridiculous calls for assassination by Pat Robertson are needed ammunition for the progressive arsenal. However, this may not be enough.
An effective means to transforming mass opinion is to create outrage. This tactic bypasses the issue-by-issue means to changing policy by instead creating alarm in the minds of people via conspiracy theory. In this case, it's getting George Bush and James Dobson in a secret meeting for tea and tyranny with R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North. By creating such connections in the minds of the populace, along with the threat of an impending theocracy, progressives can hope to alter to course of public discussion. This may work for them.
As I mentioned, they do believe these things, although not in the simplistic, rhetorical way I've stated it. But, I think you get the point. They have, however, repeatedly stated that the reconstructionists are seeking an immediate political takeover in which an elite religious group will impose "our narrow view" of Biblical law upon an unsuspecting society. That is their definition of a theocracy. I rather agree with Rushdoony's definition:
Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had. (R. J. Rushdoony, The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), 63.
As previously stated, the Chalcedon Foundation does not seek the political takeover of the centralized bureaucracy of the United States government. We never have and we never will. We have no political operatives undermining the legislative process. We do not line the pockets of lobbyists that plead our cause to weak congressional leaders. Nor have we created "front organizations" designed to perform our bidding indirectly. In a 1989 interview with the Christian Observer Rushdoony responded to the allegation that he sought control of state power:
The religion editor of a daily newspaper wrote that I believe in a power state ruled by Christians -- which I do not. I'm against the powers of church and state. I believe that God requires his people to be self-governed through various independent spheres.
But am I being deceptive in saying this? Am I cleverly hiding the fact that we do seek immediate political dominance by an editorial sleight of hand? That is what I'm often accused of. But, I think this suspicion arises from the perpetual miscommunication between the reconstructionists and the anti-theocrats. As an example, critics often cite select passages from reconstructionist literature that bear what they perceive as explicit statements of an immediate takeover. One such passage regularly cited is that by the late David Chilton:
Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a "world takeover" if you will.
This selection is taken from a larger paragraph that spells out a different emphasis as to where immediate attention is to be placed by the Christian:
Paul does not begin his work of reconstruction by fomenting a social revolution. Nor does he begin by seeking political office. He begins with the Church, and will move out to bring the rest of the world under Christ's dominion "once the Church's obedience is complete." The center of Christian reconstruction is the Church. The River of Life does not flow out from the doors of the chambers of Congresses and Parliaments. It flows from the restored Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Church of Jesus Christ. Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a "world takeover" if you will; but our strategy begins with the reformation and reconstruction of the Church. From that will flow social and political reconstruction, indeed a flowering of Christian civilization. (David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, p.214)
One might argue that this is quibbling over words and terms. It appears that Mr. Chilton is still advocating a political takeover only after the Church is "restored," whatever that means. However, like Rushdoony, Chilton sees theocracy not as the centralized political rule of priests and pastors, but the rule of God over decentralized institutions "whose law code is solidly founded on the laws of the Bible" (ibid. p.219). Again, the accusation is still, "same difference" (i.e., the outcome remains the same).
This means, rather, that the progressives object to the rule of God more so than the rule of man. The present debate focuses upon reconstructionist elites seizing by stealth the present powers of governmental rule. This is not true, nor is it presently pursued. However, long term, we do envision a world in which every institution is governed by the law of God. But, it will take more than lobbying to get there. It takes generations of faithfulness on the part of God's people.
Yet, the unbeliever has no long term hope in history. For them, time is the constant opponent to their secular utopia. Revolution, then, becomes the chosen method to humanistic dominion -- "the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time" (Rev. 12:12). Oh, they would never admit to dominionist aspirations but that neglects the fact that dominion is an inescapable concept. Some ideology is going to rule over existing institutions. Whether humanism, Christianity, Islam, or Marxism, ideologies rule by default.
The Christian, however, embraces time as God's provision for the task of dominion. We need no revolution to accomplish our ends. Chilton states this plainly:
But the Christian does not have to be afraid of the passage of time, because time is on our side. History is working toward our objectives. Every day brings us closer to the realization of the knowledge of God covering the entire world. (ibid., p.221)
"See!" the progressive screams, "they're admitting to getting closer to their goal!" Not quite. Our opponents must understand our parlance. When the secularist hears, "getting closer," they perceive it to mean the near future. When a reconstructionist declares the rule of God is getting closer he or she is encouraging themselves for the long term process. You see, the early church suffered from the same issue of patience in light of a promised coming Kingdom:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2 Peter 3:4)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)
The Biblical writers were constantly beset with the task of keeping the churches focused and faithful while the apostolic predictions of tribulation were prolonged. Therefore, the language used bears a sense that what is to come is imminent.
Reconstructionists have long used that same method. So, as Chilton declares that we are "closer to the realization of the knowledge of God covering the entire world," this must be set over against what he states on the very same page:
God promises that He will bless His people for one thousand generations. By the analogy of Scripture, then, this means that a figure of forty thousand years is a bare minimum (note: providing the Biblical generation is 40 years, 40x1000=40,000). This world has tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of increasing godliness ahead of it, before the Second Coming of Christ. (ibid., p.221-222)
Technically, with the passing of days the fullness of the future Kingdom is nearer -- at hand. Christians then admonish one another to faithful application of God's law to their respective sphere because they know that future generations of the Church depend upon our obedience today. We are only here due to the faithfulness of millions of Christians throughout Church history.
Our secular critics should exert some effort in grasping this concept -- God knows we've exhausted ourselves in trying to explain it to them. Our hope is a future victory that will feature the comprehensive rule of Jesus Christ and His law-word over every inch of this world. We do not apologize for that. We also do not hide that.
However, to misinterpret our meaning as an immediate takeover of the present political process and institute an unwanted theocracy by the power of the sword is to tout a conspiracy theory. But, conspiracy theories are beneficial. They sell books, create mailing lists, garner blog visitors, and fill conference seats. Many a progressive pundit is making their bones via the phantom enemy of the covert theocrat. And, as eight years of the Clinton administration established the careers of right-wing radio giants like Rush Limbaugh, so George Bush and his politico-religious ally, the Religious Right, are helping to launch the vocations of the anti-theocrats.
Hegel was right. Thesis creates antithesis. I doubt, however, that a synthesis is around the corner. I anticipate syncretism instead - the Church aligning itself with the totalitarian state. In the immediate, the Chalcedon Foundation will serve a better purpose in admonishing the contemporary Church to discard Caesar's robes of ostensible authority and return to God's law. In this sense, our task is both educational and prophetic; it is not political.
