My Vantage Point
Overseeing a fair amount of the ministry activities of the Chalcedon Foundation provides me with a unique position -- one from which I can view the broad spectrum of reformed conservative groups. This position has also made me a bit of a contact point, often playing liaison to otherwise opposing camps.
The challenge is in the manifold factions of reformed or conservative persuasions that relate to Chalcedon and R. J. Rushdoony. For some the connection is Christian education. For others it's political or economic. Still others relate because of eschatology or the doctrines of grace. These are general categories, but even more acute diversity is seen in the neoconfederates, John Birchers, Charismatics, and recovering Republicans that find some harmony with Christian Reconstruction.
What I'm often surprised by are the long standing veterans of Christian Reconstruction that still misconstrue the true nature of the ideology (It's the downside to the division of labor). In this case, it's when individuals or groups become so focused on a particular doctrine or emphasis that they lose sight of the overall objective. Part of the problem is that many of these veterans identify more with a student of Rushdoony than Rushdoony himself.
For example, those who relate to David Chilton or Gary DeMar tend to place great emphasis upon the importance of eschatology. Those who entered through the door of Dr. Greg Bahnsen view the transcendental argument as a more meaningful discipline of study. Many of those that early on related to Dr. Gary North entered the political as well as the economic arenas. Still more attached themselves to James Jordan and saw the importance of liturgy in organizational worship.
I do not demean any of these emphases. These are/were brilliant men with unique talent in their respective areas of expertise. And, they all DID emphasize the larger picture; but the audience DID NOT necessarily catch their noting of the big picture and hence became narrow in their focus.
North and Bahnsen were specially careful to frame the big picture of Kingdom advancement. This is due largely to the fact that both were on the "ground floor" of the reconstructionist project. They are also a part of the few that remained faithful to the system as a whole. Many that previously held my position have moved away from the essential philosophy. Others simply choose not to identify themselves with Chalcedon or Rushdoony.
There is a price to pay to call yourself "Rushdoonian." For example, while other reconstructionist writers were invited to speak at a conference held recently by D. James Kennedy, Chalcedon was not even allowed to feature a book table at the event. Theocratic conspiracy theorists can easily "connect" anyone to Rushdoony for something as simple as a book table, and that stain of relation to Chalcedon is near impossible to erase.
Where does that leave Chalcedon? Where it has always been -- on its own. Despite our reaching out to other ministries there is little reciprocity in many instances. Yes, there are faithful brethren unashamed to call us friends, but Chalcedon remains an organization best suited to lead by preparing for the future. This requires that we NOT look at what others are doing, but rather continue in the methodology of our mentor who sought to examine every area of life in terms of the law-word of God. This is also the blessing attached to my position. Rushdoony left me with thousands of pages of fodder to help plot the development of Christian civilization.
I've made it a point in 2006 to reposition the discussion of Christian Reconstruction and politics. My thesis is that Rushdoony never taught the advancement of the Kingdom of God by seizing political control. Christian Reconstruction is a "bottom up" approach to social change, and only statists view social transformation as a "top down" approach. Most humanists and secularists are statists. They hold great faith in the ability of state intervention to regulate economics, education, population, sex, and religion. What they forbid is any Conservative Christian influence in any of these spheres. Conservative Christianity is the opposing religion they will not tolerate.
However, simply because true theocrats are not seeking control of the present apparatus of the federal government in no way means we seek no governmental control. Far from it. We aggressively seek Christian government, i.e. millions of self-governing Christians living in terms of God's law. We seek to limit Christian dependency upon the state. We also seek to limit Christian dependency upon corporations, or any other institution not required by the Scriptures. This is why groups like the agrarians and homeschoolers should be encouraged. They are leading the way in taking dominion "back" from the state and corporate materialism in order to develop a more Biblical Christian.
Now, I'm not suggesting you run off and start a family farm. What I would encourage is that you examine your present way of life to see what areas you can more conform to the Scriptures. Our goal is to become faithful members of the covenant community living by the regulation of God's Word. In this way will God's Kingdom expand. You cannot stop this with politics. Political maneuvering cannot reduce the power of an idea. Christian Reconstructionists are committed to a multi-generational program. Our opponents are not. We are committed to the expansion of the family and its assets. Our opponents are not. Our opponents are focused on short term victories in the realm of politics. We are focused on the long term victory in every realm.
Since my sons were young I've spoken to them about their grandchildren, and their grandchildren's grandchildren. They know that their present actions are preparation for future generations. They understand that financial and familial surplus is necessary for the expansive calling of dominion. They were taught this by both prayer and instruction. How many humanists are doing the same? For all their learning our opponents consistently neglect the foundations of civilization. In some ways they war against it. Without these tools they are forced to seek their utopia via politics and the apparatus of the state.
On the other side, I'm not suggesting that Christians stay out of civil service. Politics is one thing. Civil service is another. We could use less politicians, but we need more servant-leaders in the arena of civil government. We are to be salt and light, and that is best presented in serving others. Politics is an arena of compromise for power. It features little service. Therefore, stay out of politics, but move aggressively to civil service. By not compromising your faith you'll limit the levels of federal government positions you can attain anyway. But, be encouraged. You'll be perfect for senior leadership in your community, city, and state.
Returning to my opening comments, we are strong so long as we are united. We are united so long as we retain the larger objective of purpose. If we all desire the victory of Christ in history, then let us relate to one another in those terms. If we disagree with each other over other matters, then let us consider carefully our course of action. Self-appointed policemen for the Body of Christ can be counter productive. Before you make debating every other theological faction your calling, consider first what your Lord may have you do. Rushdoony never allowed his opponents to determine his agenda. At this time, I believe we need more "builders" than "demolition experts." If you are called to "root out, pull down, and destroy," then remember to quickly move "to build and plant" (Jer. 1:10).
The challenge is in the manifold factions of reformed or conservative persuasions that relate to Chalcedon and R. J. Rushdoony. For some the connection is Christian education. For others it's political or economic. Still others relate because of eschatology or the doctrines of grace. These are general categories, but even more acute diversity is seen in the neoconfederates, John Birchers, Charismatics, and recovering Republicans that find some harmony with Christian Reconstruction.
What I'm often surprised by are the long standing veterans of Christian Reconstruction that still misconstrue the true nature of the ideology (It's the downside to the division of labor). In this case, it's when individuals or groups become so focused on a particular doctrine or emphasis that they lose sight of the overall objective. Part of the problem is that many of these veterans identify more with a student of Rushdoony than Rushdoony himself.
For example, those who relate to David Chilton or Gary DeMar tend to place great emphasis upon the importance of eschatology. Those who entered through the door of Dr. Greg Bahnsen view the transcendental argument as a more meaningful discipline of study. Many of those that early on related to Dr. Gary North entered the political as well as the economic arenas. Still more attached themselves to James Jordan and saw the importance of liturgy in organizational worship.
I do not demean any of these emphases. These are/were brilliant men with unique talent in their respective areas of expertise. And, they all DID emphasize the larger picture; but the audience DID NOT necessarily catch their noting of the big picture and hence became narrow in their focus.
North and Bahnsen were specially careful to frame the big picture of Kingdom advancement. This is due largely to the fact that both were on the "ground floor" of the reconstructionist project. They are also a part of the few that remained faithful to the system as a whole. Many that previously held my position have moved away from the essential philosophy. Others simply choose not to identify themselves with Chalcedon or Rushdoony.
There is a price to pay to call yourself "Rushdoonian." For example, while other reconstructionist writers were invited to speak at a conference held recently by D. James Kennedy, Chalcedon was not even allowed to feature a book table at the event. Theocratic conspiracy theorists can easily "connect" anyone to Rushdoony for something as simple as a book table, and that stain of relation to Chalcedon is near impossible to erase.
Where does that leave Chalcedon? Where it has always been -- on its own. Despite our reaching out to other ministries there is little reciprocity in many instances. Yes, there are faithful brethren unashamed to call us friends, but Chalcedon remains an organization best suited to lead by preparing for the future. This requires that we NOT look at what others are doing, but rather continue in the methodology of our mentor who sought to examine every area of life in terms of the law-word of God. This is also the blessing attached to my position. Rushdoony left me with thousands of pages of fodder to help plot the development of Christian civilization.
I've made it a point in 2006 to reposition the discussion of Christian Reconstruction and politics. My thesis is that Rushdoony never taught the advancement of the Kingdom of God by seizing political control. Christian Reconstruction is a "bottom up" approach to social change, and only statists view social transformation as a "top down" approach. Most humanists and secularists are statists. They hold great faith in the ability of state intervention to regulate economics, education, population, sex, and religion. What they forbid is any Conservative Christian influence in any of these spheres. Conservative Christianity is the opposing religion they will not tolerate.
However, simply because true theocrats are not seeking control of the present apparatus of the federal government in no way means we seek no governmental control. Far from it. We aggressively seek Christian government, i.e. millions of self-governing Christians living in terms of God's law. We seek to limit Christian dependency upon the state. We also seek to limit Christian dependency upon corporations, or any other institution not required by the Scriptures. This is why groups like the agrarians and homeschoolers should be encouraged. They are leading the way in taking dominion "back" from the state and corporate materialism in order to develop a more Biblical Christian.
Now, I'm not suggesting you run off and start a family farm. What I would encourage is that you examine your present way of life to see what areas you can more conform to the Scriptures. Our goal is to become faithful members of the covenant community living by the regulation of God's Word. In this way will God's Kingdom expand. You cannot stop this with politics. Political maneuvering cannot reduce the power of an idea. Christian Reconstructionists are committed to a multi-generational program. Our opponents are not. We are committed to the expansion of the family and its assets. Our opponents are not. Our opponents are focused on short term victories in the realm of politics. We are focused on the long term victory in every realm.
Since my sons were young I've spoken to them about their grandchildren, and their grandchildren's grandchildren. They know that their present actions are preparation for future generations. They understand that financial and familial surplus is necessary for the expansive calling of dominion. They were taught this by both prayer and instruction. How many humanists are doing the same? For all their learning our opponents consistently neglect the foundations of civilization. In some ways they war against it. Without these tools they are forced to seek their utopia via politics and the apparatus of the state.
On the other side, I'm not suggesting that Christians stay out of civil service. Politics is one thing. Civil service is another. We could use less politicians, but we need more servant-leaders in the arena of civil government. We are to be salt and light, and that is best presented in serving others. Politics is an arena of compromise for power. It features little service. Therefore, stay out of politics, but move aggressively to civil service. By not compromising your faith you'll limit the levels of federal government positions you can attain anyway. But, be encouraged. You'll be perfect for senior leadership in your community, city, and state.
Returning to my opening comments, we are strong so long as we are united. We are united so long as we retain the larger objective of purpose. If we all desire the victory of Christ in history, then let us relate to one another in those terms. If we disagree with each other over other matters, then let us consider carefully our course of action. Self-appointed policemen for the Body of Christ can be counter productive. Before you make debating every other theological faction your calling, consider first what your Lord may have you do. Rushdoony never allowed his opponents to determine his agenda. At this time, I believe we need more "builders" than "demolition experts." If you are called to "root out, pull down, and destroy," then remember to quickly move "to build and plant" (Jer. 1:10).
