Chalcedon Blog

Bruce Prescott, the blogging liberal of Mainstream Baptist and Talk2Action, has assigned himself the "simple" task of analyzing the "erroneous" thinking of R.J. Rushdoony in his Institutes of Biblical Law. He's not the first one to attempt such an enterprise, nor will he be the last. I expect that his efforts will present no novelty to the discussion; but since he writes to a small, uninformed audience, he need not bother with a careful presentation. The panicked liberal faction will imbibe any critique of the monolithic Christian Right.

In his most recent post, "Presupposing Theocracy," he begins with what he sees as the fundamental starting point of Rushdoony's polemic for Biblical law as the moral and philosophical foundation for social ethics.

After belief in biblical inerrancy, the central beliefs in the Christian Reconstructionist system are the presuppositions 1) that all law is religious in nature and 2) that all governments are founded on an established religion. Both presuppositions are questionable.

Those who are cogently aware of the foundations of Christian Reconstruction will readily see Prescott's misunderstanding of presuppositionalism, and its centrality to our philosophy. Granted, when discussing law it is imperative to demonstrate, as Rushdoony does, the religious nature of law. However, the religious nature of law is not our philosophical starting point. It's the religious nature of life that is the inescapable concept.

Prescott's concerns are the veracity of whether "law is religious in nature," and whether governments are "founded upon an established religion." The first proposition is demonstrated by Rushdoony, as you'll see, while the second is never stated as such. What Prescott misses in relation to the religious nature of law is contained in the portions of Rushdoony's text that Prescott edits out. Here's how Prescott's cites Rushdoony:

"Civil law cannot be separated from Biblical law, for the Biblical doctrine of law includes all law, civil, ecclesiastical, societal, familial, and all other forms of law. . . . Law is in every culture religious in origin. . . . in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. . . . in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. . . . no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. . . . there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion." pp. 4-5.

With an undiscerning audience such tactics may thrive, but to garner respectability Prescott is risking intellectual integrity by such hacking. Prescott foolishly states, "There's not a lot of sophisticated thought behind this logic. Rushdoony simply re-asserts political thought that was typical before the enlightenment. In those days most everybody believed that governments derived their authority from the gods and that rulers ruled by divine sanction and decree. All he did was to transpose ancient clashes of civilizations from the realm of religion to the realm of law and jurisprudence."

Prescott has run over the obvious philosophical positioning of Rushdoony's discussion. In this sense, he is the one most distant from sophistication. It is true that Rushdoony asserted that law is religious in nature, and that the source of law is the god of a particular society. However, to liken this to pre-enlightment hero-worship of ancient civilizations disqualifies Prescott as a cogent critic. To aid Mr. Prescott, I will cite the missing portions of Rushdoony's polemic and the meaning will be more than clear:

Law is in every culture is religious in origin (emphasis his). Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.

Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept. (Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. 1, p.4-5)

Prescott takes Rushdoony to be suggesting a pagan idea of law -- that somehow "governments derived their authority from the gods." First, Rushdoony is making a philosophical case, and is using philosophical parlance. Second, Rushdoony did not utilize a pagan example when addressing a source of law. Rushdoony argued, philosophically, that the source of law is found in that which is considered perfect and infallible by a society. What's interesting, in light of Prescott's accusation, is that Rushdoony's examples were primarily in the vein of the enlightenment -- especially when he directs his polemic against "man's reason." Beyond reason man may place ultimate ethical authority in a governing body (e.g., senate, court) or despotic ruler.

It should be obvious that Prescott is either in over his head or intentionally devious. I believe it is the former. This is clear by how Prescott follows his own faulty starting point into suggesting Rushdoony does not appreciate, or is not aware of such basic information like constitutional democracy. Prescott's arrogance here is breathtaking:

Missing from Rushdoony's political theory is appreciation for social contract theories of social order whereby governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. When he quotes texts from the early laws of colonial America, he glosses over statements about "the fundamental agreem(en)t, made and published by full and gen(e)r(a)l consent," and focuses on any indication "that the judiciall law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, . . . should be the rule of their proceedings." (pp.1-2)

I'm not sure how Rushdoony can be accused of "glossing over" statements in this instance. His point is quite plain. Christendom viewed itself as the new Israel of God, and the puritan adoption of Biblical law, Rushdoony notes, was sure evidence of their idea of theonomic continuity. This in no way is contrary, or demonstrates a lack of appreciation of representative governers appointed by the people. The authority of government "derived from the people" was not a source of law -- which is Rushdoony's whole argument. In this sense, Prescott is guilty of what he charges of Rushdoony -- baseless authoritarianism. Government by the consent of the people does not provide us the source of law. For Prescott, it does. Therefore, Vox Populi Vox Dei.

Rushdoony is only stating that in whatever form of government (senate, court, or despot) what must be examined is the source of law. Rushdoony is seeking the "philosophical" source of law within a society. Prescott is chasing a rabbit by suggesting Rushdoony doesn't appreciate where democratic leaders derive their authority. This is completely off the point. Within a constitutional republic where, philosophically, is the source of law? It's certainly not in the consent of the governed. That would be Vox Populi Vox Dei.

For those who accept Rushdoony's presuppositions, matters of law and governance appear to be readily resolved by the application of some simple, straightforward reasoning. All legislation and jurisprudence is merely a practical extension of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. The laws of the Bible were given by the one true God. He is perfect and just. His laws are perfect and just. Laws derived from and consistent with his laws will be perfect and just. Life regulated by those laws will be a utopia.

I guess "simple, straightforward reasoning" is prohibited in such matters. Is this any different than Prescott's simplistic belief that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of Almighty God and should not be utilized in legislation? If not God's law, then what, Mr. Prescott? What higher law do you refer to? Whatever it is, it is obviously superior to God's law since you readily dismiss His Word as the source of law. If you can identify for all us "simpletons" where your source of law is, then we, as Rushdoony suggests, would come to understand the nature of your god. I thank you for making Rushdoony's point.

Prescott continues:

Utopia for Rushdoony and his followers is dystopia for others. He acknowledges that "many servants who came with the Puritans later were in full scale revolt against any Biblical faith and order." (p.1)

The rebellion of servants against Biblical faith and order was not some noble uprising. But, I understand your point. A Biblically governed society is no "utopia" to anal-penetrating homosexuals or those who slaughter the unborn. It is as Rushdoony says, "in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion... When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism" (p.5). It is Prescott's intent to shift civilization from Christian theism to humanistic foundations. I assume he does this because he believes in the divinity of man. He certainly cannot be surprised that we would organize against his enterprise. I'll let him describe our reaction:

It appears that, in Rushdoony's mind, it is unfortunate that the "servants" of the Puritans ultimately prevailed as the "law-system" developed in the United States. His writings have been encouraging the descendants of the Puritans to reassert their "dominion" over American society.

We do not seek to reassert "our" dominion over American society. It is the rule of God over self-governing individuals that we seek. That is a long-term mission that will out-live both myself and Prescott. Theocracy means the "rule of God." Prescott and his posse persistently confuse that with "ecclesiocracy" -- the rule of the church.

This ideological battle is important. Our opponents repeatedly misconstrue our position, and make no effort to adequately clarify the difference between the central tenets of Christian Reconstruction and the political tactics of Religious Right organizations. No matter. We are an educational organization, and therefore, we will labor diligently to educate the likes of Prescott, and those of similar disposition, to return to the "faith once delivered to the saints."