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).
Tackling the extensive library of R. J. Rushdoony can appear a daunting task. Not only is the page count enormous, but his work is replete with obscure references from historians, philosophers, theologians, and dime store novels. Rushdoony read broadly, and that expansive reading is present throughout all of his books.
You might be somewhat familiar with Christian Reconstruction, or theonomy, but that doesn't make the trek through Rushdoony necessarily simpler. There are great differences between Rushdoony and some of the other theonomic writers. For example, the divergence between Rushdoony and Gary North regarding ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) has fantastic implications for much of what they both write. In addition, Rushdoony's hermenuetic (method of interpretation) is unique to himself as his idealism provides him a masterful tool for gleaning truth.
However, for the serious Christian, reading Rushdoony is sure to be one of the most unique literary experiences you'll ever have. It's not for the faint of heart. You'll perpetually be challenged with the ultimatum, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve."
Rushdoony's Writing Style
Rushdoony's distinguished himself through his writing style. He reads much like the puritans, or Calvin, with a confident prose absent of insecure syntax. He meant what he wrote, and he wrote what he meant. You won't find words like "maybe" or "if." Everything is in the affirmative.
Rushdoony's thesis is also persuasive. He does not seek to inform his reader of facts. His approach to facts is that they are God-created and God-determined. Therefore, Rushdoony is apologetic (defender of the faith) in his approach. He does not waste paper providing you with what can easily be lifted from an encyclopedia.
How Rushdoony Wrote His Books
A most important point to remember is how Rushdoony put together the majority of his books. Most of them are topical compilations of essays and sermons. Why is this important? Because most academic books present the reader with a basic thesis which the author then seeks to establish in the subsequent pages. Each chapter builds from the previous one, and at the end there is usually some sort of summary to recap the entire the discussion. Most of Rushdoony's books are NOT written this way.
Only a few of his books are written in the standard academic fashion. Most of them are "studies" within a certain discipline. It's not that the individual chapters are unrelated. They do not, however, necessarily lead into one another. The chapters are self-contained and can often be read alone with great benefit.
The Reading Method
A now famous volume given to most college students is Adler and Van Doren's How to Read a Book. It is a most helpful discussion on the details of tackling difficult books, and I recommend it to anyone who'd like to become a better reader. The sage advice of Adler and Van Doren when inspecting a book for the first time is to peruse the entirety of a book spending no more than a few seconds per page. This is after reading the title, back cover blurb, table of contents and index. The objective is to familiarize yourself with a book so that the initial reading is not completely unfamiliar territory. For very difficult books, Adler and Van Doren recommend the following:
In tackling a difficult book for the first time, read it through without ever stopping to look up or ponder the things you do not understand right away. Pay attention to what you can understand and do not be stopped by what you cannot immediately grasp. Go right on reading past the point where you have difficulties in understanding, and you will soon come to things you do understand. Concentrate on these. Keep on in this way. Read the book through, undeterred and undismayed by the paragraphs, footnotes, comments, and references that escape you. If you let yourself get stalled, if you allow yourself to be tripped up by any one of these stumbling blocks, you are lost. In most cases, you will not be able to puzzle the thing out by sticking to it. You will have a much better chance of understanding it on a second reading, but that requires you to have read the book through at least once. (Mortimer Adler & Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, p. 36f)
Most of us will need these principles in order to best learn from Rushdoony's books. The only difference is that since most of his books are studies, I recommend the same approach, only instead of reading through the entire book, I suggest rereading the individual chapters. For example, you would first go through the chapter reading only the first sentence of each paragraph. This will take a few minutes. Then you will read through the entire chapter in the manner Adler and Van Doren suggest. You don't stop to ponder, you just keep reading. After that, read the chapter again more carefully with a pencil and straightedge in hand. What you want to do is highlight the pertinent elements of his discussion.
(At the recommendation of Adler and Van Doren, I read with a pointer, or pencil, in order to increase my reading speed. Our eyes have a tendency to jump around and often miss the next line and such. This can really slow you down after a while. By allowing your eye to follow the pointer you can both stay on track and increase your speed. Try to make your eye keep up as you accelerate the speed the pointer is moving across each line.)
Once you finish marking the chapter I encourage you to write a brief summary of the chapter in the space left over at the end of the chapter. If there is no space, you can use a piece of paper instead. The goal is to comprehend the content, and this is best achieved by writing down what you perceive to be the thrust of Rushdoony's discussion in your own words. A further advantage to this is that you can come back to the book at a later date and quickly read your summaries to refresh your mind on the subject.
I realize this is asking a lot of yourself when reading an individual writer. After all, it's not like Rushdoony's books are equal to the Bible. My advice is for those who desire to learn the system of teaching that Rushdoony presented. Although critics of Rushdoony scream "anathema," I believe Rushdoony is one of the most important Protestant thinkers since Dabney and Warfield. I would include Van Til in this lineage, but Rushdoony is just Van Til sharpened to a point.
What you'll enjoy most is that regardless of your previous education a proper method of reading will help you better comprehend books you might otherwise avoid. As the first president of Harvard once said, "you can get a world class education from a shelf of books five feet long." I hope this is helpful advice to you.
France directly borders with Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. In addition, it's only a short puddle jump across the English Channel and a Frenchman is in the United Kingdom. Despite their close proximity, these seven countries speak completely different languages.
Expanding this diversity, from the bottom of Greece to the heights of Norway, Europe is teeming with such cultural, religious, racial, and political diversity it's as if these compacted countries were worlds apart.
The total land mass of Europe is not quite 75% the size of the United States, yet it bears such strong diversity. The respective countries understand that borders, culture, and race, despite the close proximity, are to be respected. This mentality held true during the failed attempt at establishing a European Union in 2005.
Switch Over to America
I can't help but laugh at the sheer disgust that some New Yorkers have in the rednecks of Alabama. They have funny accents, pickup trucks, and love to hunt. This distaste is quite natural. After all, New York is as far from Alabama as Greece is from Britain, or France is from Poland. And in the tobacco fields of North Carolina we don't think too much of the loonies in San Francisco who are as distant from from us as the French are from Moscow.
Americans are living in a land of illusion -- a self-imposed "unity" originally enforced by northern muskets. Don't get me wrong. I love the north, south, east and west. I lived in New York for a time. I also lived in Texas. I love California, the midwest, and the dry heat of Arizona. But, I'm sure a fair amount of the French vacation on the beaches of Greece as well. They're just not seeking a "union" of their respective countries. The point is that we should not be surprised over the great diversity of the respective states of America. Many of them are virtual countries. Just pay a visit to West Virginia.
What truly divides us as a country is that the division we perceive is set over against the illusion of national unity. We are not unified. We never have been, and we never will be. This goes for the South as well as the North. Whenever I'm blessed enough to visit my wife's family in the great state of Mississippi, I'm reminded that for many Southerners, the War between the States was just a few years ago.
In the South, we love the land and community. The South had no real social issues until the invasion of the North and the resulting nightmare of reconstruction. Social issues tend to spawn in densely populated cities. A Southern social issue was what to do about the lack of rain.
Agrarianism and its supporting industries were the tangible foundations of Southern culture. Their decline began after the war. It continues to date as farming is both regulated and "privatized" (in the corporate sense) with real family farming being put out of business. The scientific elite desire total control, and a land filled with farmers is anathema to the totalitarian state. This all began after America's great war. Then, during the early 20th century, the South became a plain, and was not repopulated sizably until the advent of air conditioning.
Mocking the South
New York cannot remake Alabama in its own image, though it certainly tries. How so? Find the articles, essays, films, or political leaders doing such in the South. Show me southern elitists looking down their nose at the liberal establishment of the Northeast. Yet, every time I turn around another Hollywood reel is mocking the South. Think of Will Ferrell's mockery of NASCAR country in "Talladega Nights" or the Jew Cohen's "Borat" which does the same. I refer to Cohen as the Jew because it seems to be a premise behind his perverse comedy. (If that description moves me higher up the list of Morris Dees' designated hatemongers, well, lucky me!)
Southern, and Southwestern, Red States are ridiculed by the enlightened North. It's just "American" (I mean "American" in the Manhattan sense) to despise the South and its Christian heritage. Somehow this gives our fellow countrymen meaning and purpose. We are their bogeyman. Well, so be it. The South never wanted any part of this experiment, remember? We TOLD you it wouldn't work!
In actuality, we are different countries. We are as different as France and Spain though we share the same border. We do not speak a different language, but our accents are distinct and our meanings are polarized. We desire to live free from the imposition of the values and ideas of opposing states. This is what many northern states are fighting. They want no part of the theocratic ideas that pervade the Bible Belt states. But like the War of Northern Aggression, the tendency of power mad statists is to impose their concept of freedom without any acknowledgment of borders. The country is being driven to the same ideological conflicts made apparent in 1861.
We are worlds apart as a country. We are kidding ourselves to think otherwise. Centralization of power after the war, and the reconstruction of the South, did not lead to utopia. It was a deconstruction of America's basic premise: independence. Our unity as a country of individual states should have been established upon God's law, i.e. love of neighbor. But my freedom ends where my neighbors property begins. In this sense, there is not unity. There is only respect for property.
The Law of Love
The horror of American history is not slavery or segregation. It's not the Depression or the War Between the States. The horror of any society is when it replaces God's law with man's law. I'm not commanded to "like" or "live" with everybody. But, I am commanded to "love" everybody. Love, however, should never be equated with liking someone. The dusty Old Testament puts it this way:
If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forebear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Exodus 23:4-5
This is what the Bible means by loving one's enemies, as our Lord says:
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, or persecute you. Matthew 5:44
If your enemy requires help with his ox, then you must help him. However, he's still your enemy, and these commandments say nothing about how to "feel" about your enemies. After all, they are your enemy. What God demands is love, and love is not a good feeling. Love is demonstrated in law-keeping. Luke 10:27 declares, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and they neighbour as thyself." How do we love God in this manner? Simple:
If ye love Me, keep My commandments. John 14:15
We love God by keeping His commandments. How then do we love our neighbor? Simple. We keep God's commandments towards him. If his animal is caught in a hole, help him get it out; but you're not required to get together for a barbecue. That is not commanded. Liberals, however, want you to feel good about each other. They want to remove the animosity and the hate. They set up anti-hate institutions to insure it. They perpetually deny the human condition -- that there will be enemies that live close enough that you'll come in contact with their animals. Enemies are an inescapable concept.
What is truly miraculous is when a people, despite their cultural, racial, and religious differences, can treat one another lawfully. They don't steal, defraud, kill, or mistreat one another. They respect their borders and do not impose their ideals upon another. However, this doesn't mean we have to be "unified" as some massive nation. How are we then any different than the old Soviet Union? You cannot impose unity. Life is meant to be lived locally, and unity finds itself in commonality. I find no commonality with the liberal establishment and the states they dominate.
Early America was a better America. It was not without its faults, but it had the primary pillars in place that were conducive to the betterment of the human condition. National unity, or should we say "centralization", is a pipe dream. I cannot live in covenant with certain aspects of the U.S. anymore than I can with someone in France. But isn't that the plan? Some sort of world union? A United States of the World? Heck, why stop at America's national unity? If that's a good idea, then a world unity is a better idea. I guess that's what they mean by being "progressive."
The American experiment was hijacked by Lincoln and the centralists. Whereas once General Robert E. Lee referred to his state of Virginia as his "country," U.S. Generals are now in Iraq defending theirs -- the 50 states. This is an illusion. This is an imposed unity by the barrell of a gun. What liberals are screaming about now regarding an American military-based imperialism that is forcing an American democracy on a sovereign nation is the reason why Southerners remember the Civil War 141 years later. American imperialism began when the blue uniforms crossed the Mason-Dixon.
I can't say how the future will play out, but the polarization of America is irreversible. Protection against such things as opposing values and illegal immigration may necessitate a different type of border protection -- the border that's closest to you.
My prayer is that America will come to its senses and work to decentralize itself. I realize that would mean a conversion in both Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. It is still a worthy goal, and a great many Southerners have educated their children along those lines. The question is, when will the folks from the northern "countries" wake up to it?
Here's another interesting perspective from Chalcedon Vice-President, Martin Selbrede as he addresses a fellow believer on the subject of the "quiet time."
After our discussion last night, I thought I'd look up some representative claims regarding a personal quiet time and see if anybody -- anywhere -- supported the notion with anything other than what I said they were using (to wit, making a weak, out-of-context inference from a verse concerning Jesus praying away from the crowds that pressed on Him). None of the sources provide a single command in Scripture concerning the doctrine of a personal quiet time. The Great Commission says we are to teach the nations "all things whatsoever I have commanded." Where God did not command, we have no imperative to teach (especially to teach something as a binding obligation!). Teaching the necessity for a personal quiet time is to teaching something that God has not commanded (since no command in Scripture concerning it exists -- anywhere).
Anyway, this is what the "lay of the land" looks like. Nobody has found a command to support what they still feel is commanded. Very strange that a fairly new tradition has gotten this entrenched so quickly, with so little scriptural support (actually no support if we use the Bible's own standard for what obligates God's creatures). The doctrine fails the "good and necessary" test for inferences mandated by the Westminster Confession as well.
Some quotes from major sources on the topic:
"Your personal "quiet time" is probably the single most important factor to produce a growing, exciting Christian life... our quiet time needs to become a habit as regular as brushing your teeth or watching the 6 o'clock news. ... Your quiet time helps you grow to become all that Christ wants you to be." -- Dr. Ralph F. Wilson (astonishingly, NO scripture provided in support of any of this).
"The Christian must have a proper diet to grow. This diet should consist of prayer and Bible study. This is what we call consistent quiet time... Establish a definite time. Choose a definite place. Set goal and content of the devotional time. Have a goal." (cnetweb.org's pamphlet on "Developing a Personal Quiet Time -- only Scripture provided in support is Mark 1:35 that Jesus went out to pray early in the morning).
The Southern Baptist Convention of Virginia, on "A Personal Quiet Time With God," provides a similar inferential scripture (not a command or instruction) when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane: "Jesus went alone to be with His Father (Matthew 26:36), and so should we." There are several surprising things about this citation. Jesus's time with His Father was anything but quiet (He sweated blood and cried out to God in anguish), it wasn't private (a stone's throw from his disciples was about 20 yards so they could hear Him), and, more to the point, He had told the Peter, John and James to pray together (to NOT have a private quiet time, obviously), and He criticized them for falling asleep instead of so doing. If you read only verse 36, you might conclude that Jesus left all the disciples behind, but he took three with him (verse 37). The prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is a unique and special event in the Lord's earthly life, but it makes for a poor proof text for a "quiet private time" considering the ACTUAL instructions He gave to His disciples. More to the point, look at the logic: "Jesus did X, and so should we." Nobody really thinks this way (after all, Jesus didn't get married, or eat pork...). This is picking & choosing to try to prop up an under-supported doctrine where there is no clear biblical mandate, instruction, precept, command, direction, whatsoever.
Cheryl R. Carter, writing in MomTime.net, is even more adamant about the sinfulness of not having a private quiet time with God: "There's an incredible sin-a secret sin in the body of Christ. All of us have been guilty of this sin, at one time or another. Few would admit it but the consequences of this sin are evident in all our churches and our personal lives. In fact, conservatively speaking fifty-to-eighty percent of all churchgoers are guilty of this sin. It is the sin of neglecting God; not spending time with Him. I am referring to quality quiet time with the Lord without a personal agenda, just an open heart and a ready ear." She doesn't bother to supply a single scripture in support of her contention. She doesn't even try. She just mows down "sinners" by equating neglect of God (obviously bad) with not having a personal quiet time (a modern theological innovation).
Gospel Ministries to Children offers a similarly strong warning: "The importance of a personal quiet time (daily devotions) in the life of a Christian cannot be overestimated. " No scripture cited in support.
ElevateYourLife.net insists that you "set aside at least 15 minutes of each day for a quiet time... the first priority of your day" because "many Christians testify that nothing has been as important to them as this daily quiet time." This is clearly not an argument from Scripture, but from what other Christians say. The website resorts to this argument because there is no scriptural requirement to have a personal private quiet time (although there is nothing to forbid it either). However, if it were important and/or critical, why did the Bible (that is supposed to be a sufficient guide to us) contain no instructions concerning it? Why isn't it mentioned as part of the whole armor of God? The "many Christians testify X" argument runs aground: all we have to do is find Christians who testify to the opposite. The fact that "personal quiet time" as a doctrine is only about one century old leads us to conclude that Christians did much better without it: the advent of personal quiet time occurred at the same time the church became more culturally irrelevant and gave up more ground to secularism and to worldliness.
There are even entire ministries built around personal quiet time. "Six Secrets To A Powerful Quiet Time" (www.thesixsecrets.com) is one run by Cathy Martin, who has introduced the trademarked P.R.A.Y.E.R. Quiet Time Plan (also trademarked). How did Christians survive without this for centuries? Hard to imagine! On the main website, www.quiettime.org/whatisqt.htm, we get four paragraphs listed under the large bold headline, "What is a Quiet Time? -- The Biblical Basis for Quiet Time with the Lord." Only one of the scriptures she supplies even remotely touches on the topic, and it's the kind of verse I referred to in our phone conversation (it's a weak inference based on something Jesus did). She chose a parallel passage to Mark 1:35 (Luke 5:16). The text does NOT teach us that Jesus had a quiet time, and He certainly did NOT have a quiet time in the sense that people would, because He didn't lack for intimacy with the Father ("I and the Father are One"), and He elsewhere states (John 11) that His open prayers are for the benefit of those around them hearing His words, and not for His own benefit at all. THIS is the other hazard of equating us to the Second Person of the Trinity and trying to extend the Son's relationship with the Father (which is intimate beyond any human language to explain) to 21st century Christians.
Jesus Himself defeated Satan by saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." I then ask, "show me the word that proceeded from the mouth of God that commands a quiet time." There is none: God commanded no such thing, nor did He forbid it. We are not committing a great sin by not having a personal quiet time, and we are not more obedient when we do have a personal quiet time.
What the Scriptures DO command (obviously) is prayer and study of His Word, but these can NOT be equated with a personal quiet time. Centuries of Christians have faithfully obeyed these commands of God without a personal quiet time. I should point out that if I WERE inclined to want to follow Jesus concerning a personal quiet time, the only honest way to follow that example would be to literally drive out to the desert or wilderness (the word used in the Gospels). Jesus never retreated to a room in a house, even IF (big IF) he had a personal quiet time of any kind. His prayer became a lot like "the voice crying in a wilderness."
Anyway, all that to say, the situation is pretty much as I described it last night. Each writer has a better idea of how to improve our Christian walk, and then hangs these ideas on everyone else's neck like a millstone. The fact is, the emperor is wearing no clothes. It saddens me to say it, but if this was a clearly taught command of Scripture, why can nobody provide a verse in the 66 books that compose the Bible? It shouldn't be that hard to support the doctrine with a command in the Scriptures. The Bible is loaded with commands -- why is this one missing? It's mysterious indeed.
Each December my family and I take time to give thanks for the men and women used of the Lord to shape and define our lives. There have been many. On different evenings we will tell the stories of different men and women who make up the providential investment which God has deposited in the bank account of our lives and the lives of godly fathers who came before us. This week we are telling the story of Dr. R. J. Rushdoony -- a man who, like David before him, could declare: "I love the law of God."
Dr. R. J. Rushdoony was God's appointed evangel who guided my beloved father out of the lostness of his Judaism and into the glorious Gospel of Christ. As such, he was the tool of the Lord to bring light and life into my family. For this, as well as for his many, many personal kindnesses to me, I will forever be his debtor.
Around the time that Dr. Rushdoony went to be with the Lord (February 8, 2001), my father suffered an accident and was unable to attend the funeral. I was running a Father and Son retreat in the middle of a blizzard in the mountains of California when I received the call from my father that he wanted to commission me on his behalf to drive through the night and morning, travel about eight hours, and bring a very special message to Mrs. Rushdoony on his behalf. Last night I found the tape of the funeral and the meeting with Mrs. Rushdoony. God willing, I will pull a few clips from the funeral and the meeting with Mrs. Rushdoony and post it on my blog next week. (FYI, Mark Rushdoony has graciously granted me permission to show the clips.)
Critics of conservative Christianity seize upon the most extreme elements in order to paint the entire community with a broad brush. The Charismatic film Jesus Camp is an inside look at a single children's camp -- presently shut down -- headed up by a self-appointed female leader seeking to raise up young evangelists to contend with the forces of ungodliness permeating the nation. The footage is also now famous because it features the now defrocked Ted Haggard toying with the camera in a live service mocking Christians dabbling in sexual perversion. The irony, in light of recent events, is off the charts.
For those familiar with Charismatic "spiritual warfare" teaching, we've seen kids and teachers wearing military outfits, knight's armor, etc. for a great many years. NEVER, and I mean NEVER, is there any suggestion that children are to take arms against anyone. For those who are outside this branch ("Charismania"), the footage is reminiscent of Islamic-like indoctrination of children. For non-charismatic Christians, the footage is just dumb.
The Apostle Paul used military parlance as a teaching tool (c.f. Eph. 6:10-18). But, the battle is spiritual in nature. I've yet to hear a Christian group ever suggest actual violence.
This is what groups like the Charismatics do because they lack solid reformed theology -- in some cases, it's because they lack theology period. However, critics do seize on these instances in an effort to promote fear among their political constituencies. They'd never admit to it, but it's clearly the end result. I know, I've read dozens of blogs featuring the distored hysteria.
What is equally ridiculous is the present criticism of homeschooling and the efforts made by several on the Left to "suggest" that Christian homeschooling families are "secretly" preparing children for a great violent culture war. There is also the suggestion, as one man wrote me, that homeschooling children are ill-equipped intellectually, and cannot hold a candle to the Einsteins in public schools. The statistics actually demonstrate the opposite.
Here's an example of what we often find within the ranks of conservative homeschooling families: Godliness, Bible study, superb academics, massive time spent with family, diligent labor on family property, care for younger siblings, and the cultivation of every aspect of the arts.
So, for all of the nonsense appearing in Jesus Camp, let's try another film that presents a different story. See if you can spot the Islamic extremism in this trailer that is preparing these lovely young Christian girls for violence in the streets.
[T]he Jeffersonian doctrine of the absolute severance and independence of church and state, of the entire secularity of the State, and the absolutely equal rights, before the law, of religious truth and error, of paganism, atheism, and Christianity, has also established itself in all the States; and still the politicians, for electioneering ends, propagate this State education everywhere. By this curious circuit "Christian America" has gotten herself upon this throughly pagan ground; forcing the education of responsible, moral, and immortal beings, of which religion must ever be the essence, into the hands of a gigantic human agency, which resolves that it cannot and will not be religious at all. Surely, some great religious body will arise in America to lift its Christian protest against this monstrous result! ~ Dabney, Discussions, Vol. IV: Secular, 548.
Here Dabney rightly shows that the Jeffersonian vision of secularism and its muscle, the statist public education system, has thoroughly compromised the Christian core of American civilization. In a day when speech was more plain, Dabney describes this shift in "Christian America" to be one of a move to paganism. Education, Dabney argues, must be thoroughly religious; and how then can Christianity survive if its children are placed "into the hands of a gigantic human agency, which resolves that it cannot and will not be religious at all?"
Dabney felt the implications of post-war statism in education. Jeffersonian secularism and state schools were sure to give rise to both paganism and tyranny -- they have: government has never been bigger, and the multiplicity of religionists and spiritualists is exponential. In a day when churchmen were much more conservative Dabney appeared as more than an alarmist. But, as is so often true of the acute Southern Presbyterian thinker, Dabney held a prophetic hope that a God-ordained future will yield a reformation that will oppose secularism and state education. Allow me to cite a second time the last refrain of his prophetic quote:
Surely, some great religious body will arise in America to lift is Christian protest against this monstrous result!
Sixty-seven years later, a single voice -- or should I say, "pen" -- sounded from the margins of Dabney's same theological and ecclesiastical stock to speak forcefully and clearly to the Goliath of secularism and its unholy temple, the public school system. The voice, and pen, was that of R. J. Rushdoony. The "great religious body" is that of Christian Reconstruction. The 45 year-old Rushdoony wrote:
Thus, between the two concepts of education, the Calvinistic and that of the Enlightenment and contemporary thought, there can be no compromise. They are in hopeless contradiction. The modern concept, with its cosmopolitanism and its clean-tablet ideal, is erosive and destructive of all aspects of culture except the monolithic state, which is then the ostensible creator and patron of culture. When it speaks of the whole child, it speaks of a passive creature who is to be molded by statist education for the concept of the good life radically divorced from God and from all transcendental standards. The goal of such education will only be reached when man ceases to be man, and, this being an impossibility, the only outcome of such education can be increasing resistance of the child to its radical implications. ~ Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia, 10.
As the debate stands today, what is important is the status of Christian families, not the status of pagans, non-believers, et al. Christians are required to distribute their labor to fund the public school system, ergo fund secularism, but no voice for Christianity is welcomed in the public sphere. Christian lobbying groups waste untold millions in an effort to baptize public education when they should rather compel their constituencies to provide Christian alternatives to public education, e.g. Christian schools and homeschooling.
Over a century ago Dabney represented a minority voice. In 1961, Rushdoony was even more so. Approaching 2007 we are witnessing continued growth in Christian education, but millions of Christian children remain in public schools. The implications of this are felt long-term. Yet, we need not wait another 100 years to know the end result for Dabney has already made this plain. Since his original essays on state education -- which I encourage all to read -- we have seen the the results socially, spiritually, politically, and economically. We can only expect more of this... in spades.
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord! Isaiah 31:1
I recently spoke with a fine Christian woman that was concerned about what she perceived as a different direction for Chalcedon. By this she was referring to my critique of the Religious Right, the GOP, and an overemphasis upon politics. She expressed great frustration at all the Bush-bashing and criticism of American foreign policy from fellow Christians -- Christians that appeared to only offer opposition, but presented no real solutions.
She repeatedly asked what our solutions were to the rise of Islam, and the economic and military prowess of China. She demeaned whatever reeked of isolationism or inactivity. She decried any de-emphasis upon politics, or the need for aggressive activism. After about an hour I realized what I was dealing with -- she was a political Christian.
When I mentioned the importance of repentance, prayer, self-government, and faith in God, she asked if I had "faith in my car?" What she meant was that I needed to place my faith ALSO in the government, the military, and political organization. I reminded her that "He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man" (Ps. 147:10). This response only frustrated her more.
Her trust was in man and man's ability. Therefore, she had every reason to fear. She was practicing atheism -- God was not at the center of her equations. If her trust is in political activism, and a strong military, then God will give her over to that for her defense. He is greatly offended by such misdirected confidence, and causes both the powers, as well as those who trust in the powers, to fail together:
Now the Egyptians are men, and not God: and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is helped shall fall down, and all shall fail together. Isaiah 31:3
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help (v. 1). This is a clear warning from the terrible and awesome God that works all things according the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). The One that desires His people take counsel from His mouth:
Woe to the rebellious children... that walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharoah, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the strength of Pharoah be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt be your confusion. Isaiah 30:1-3
Conforming to the Image of This World
The oft-quoted refrain by Aristotle is that "man is by nature a political animal." He is correct. The organizing principle of humanism is statism, and history bears witness as her timeline is replete with the rise and fall of a myriad of empires. Our present national organization is no different. Despite the inscription upon our fiat currency, in God we do not trust.
What is disheartening is the transformation of God's people from a community of faith into an electoral bloc bent on advancing His Kingdom through legislation. We are conforming to the image of the world -- a world of political animals. As a holy nation, and royal priesthood, we have dishonored our spiritual mandate by disrobing our glorious garments and leaving the road to Zion. We are on a new trail of tears -- a march to the outskirts of Egypt and the domain of Pharoah.
Without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6). Faith in my car? No, sister, I do not have faith in my car. Were God to withdraw His providential hand every sparrow and hair on my head would fall to the ground. I am sustained by the gracious decrees of the sovereign God. I do not model myself, or God's people, after the great armies of Napoleon, Washington, or Shwartzkoff. King David was not taught to number his men, but rather to wait upon the Lord. This is not anti-militarism. It is trust in God.
It matters little the strength of our military if God is against us. It matters little the strength of our military if God is for us. For, if God be for us, who can be against us (Rom. 8:31)? If God be against us... well, God forbid!
We often receive questions representing a broad spectrum of inquiry. It's not uncommon for our resident expert, Martin Selbrede (Chalcedon Vice-President), to provide outstanding summaries of the reconstructionist position on tough issues. Here's one such example:
Q:I was given a link to your site in a chatroom, shortly after someone was ranting about America going back to Christian values, rounding up all the gays and killing them "as per God's Word". That lunacy aside, I'm interested as to what Chalcedon would propose in order to deal with Islam, and in particular the rise of Islamic militancy (if indeed there is a difference).
A: Chalcedon has been subjected to stupendous distortions of its positions, distortions designed to discredit the Lord's work in this important ministry. Consequently, we are rightly sensitive about how any off-the-cuff statements may be used down the line. It is our preference to let the carefully argued positions in our various publications do the heavy lifting. I'm not imagining this issue: I traveled to New York in both April and October of 2005 to attend secularist conferences sponsored in part by the City University of New York Graduate Center that were rife with gross misrepresentations of Chalcedon's positions. I suspect even worse distortion would arise in connection with the hot potato you're calling attention to in your email. Therefore, my words herein constitute my personal reply to you and not an official statement by Chalcedon in any measure or capacity whatsoever.
There have been some individuals who have a favorable relationship, albeit a loose and unofficial one, with Chalcedon. Some of them have written on the issue of Islam, and Chalcedon is in general support of their positions (although we reserve the right to withdraw support if their position shifts to something untenable, however unlikely that may be).
For example, we find the work of Dr. Christine Schirrmacher, perhaps the most competent Christian involved in the study of Islam, to be exceptionally valuable. Her article in the Chalcedon publication "A Comprehensive Faith" delineated how liberal Christianity in the 19th century handed Islam some glorious victories with its sustained attack on the Bible's reliability. Just what Muslim apologists needed: ammunition provided by Christianity itself (so-called).
Also of interest is the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen's article about What Christians Can Learn from Muslims. As he points out, if you told a Muslim his faith was relevant only one day of the week, and the rest of the week he needed to conduct his life along secular lines, he'd laugh in your face. Until Christians re-adopt the totalism of St. Paul and begin taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-5), the 24-7 consistency of Muslim life will be a standing rebuke to the Church. As it is expressed in the second chapter of Jeremiah, the heathen worship their false gods with greater loyalty than Israel worships the true One. The indictment stings against us as well. God raises up such examples as a reproof to His own people.
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, a long-time friend of the late Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, adopts a Historicist approach to the book of Revelation. Most approaches along this line (including Lee's) regard the ninth chapter of Revelation to be speaking of Islam. You will find this position going back to the Reformation and up through the 19th century (where one finds it in E.W. Hengsenberg's commentary on Revelation). Dr. Rushdoony himself, however, did not adopt the views of the Historicists regarding Revelation. He favored the Idealist view, as his own commentary attests, and he had some nominal interest in the Preterist approach as well. In either case, Chalcedon's founder did not see Islam mentioned as such in Revelation 9, although a few associates of his beyond the borders of Chalcedon have promoted that idea. You can find Dr. Lee's commentary on the Internet as a free download if you wish to see how he dealt with the issue.
Finally, the late Otto Scott was once a staff writer for Chalcedon. He was something of an independent voice at Chalcedon in many respects during his tenure. A noted Christian historian, he had written at length about the reversal of Islamic expansion (an expansion achieved by the sword) in Europe several hundred years ago, and was of the personal opinion that similar measures might possibly be required in the future. Europe cannot fight something with nothing. Its gross secularization has rendered it legitimately vulnerable to the appeal of Islam. Only a re-energized Christianity can confront Islam on the field of ideas, in the minds of men.
Let us consider the question you originally posed, "How would Chalcedon deal with Islamic militancy?" Chalcedon is a Christian educational foundation. As such, it doesn't usurp the Scriptural prerogative of the civil magistrate to defend the law-abiding populace from enemies within and without (those defined as such by the explicit Law of God and by no other standard). The civil magistrate can only respond to actual, concrete acts by an individual that violates the law: men are held civilly accountable for what they do, not for what they believe or what they are. One's deeds serve as the only criterion for governmental response. If a Christian and a Muslim both break the same law, the civil magistrate is to deal with them identically. God is no respecter of persons in this regard. The church's mission, as a ministry of grace (rather than of justice, which falls under the charter of the civil magistrate, not the Church), involves penetrating its mission field with the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation.
I am concerned when Christians blithely assume that God will act in judgment against Islam, considering that He has clearly revealed that judgment begins at the house of God. I regard that statement by the Apostle Peter to be paradigmatic. The church is failing in so much of its mission to the world. Paul claimed that he was guiltless of the blood of any man, since he had not failed to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We cannot echo his claim, which implies that we're not in the same blessed place as Paul occupied. Nothing less than unleashing the entire Bible on the hearts and minds of the peoples will secure its blessings to all.
The difference in outlook between Christianity and Islam can be summed up in a nutshell. Paul asserted that the true Jew is the one who is a Jew inwardly, while Mohammad held that one is a true Muslim who is one outwardly. Until this immense difference is fully grasped, until the appeal of religious externalism is appreciated, the preparation of counsel will be stultified and our responses will misfire.
Ultimately, obedience is better than sacrifice. Christians too often look for quick fixes and various forms of "sacrifice" to deal with perceived problems, but God had in mind something more painful: obey His commandments. As Psalm 127 makes clear, unless the Lord is involved, all labor and defense is in vain. Trusting in horses and chariots gets us in trouble: "Cursed is the man that trusts in man, that maketh flesh his arm." (Jer. 17:5) "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: of what account is he?" (Isa. 2:22) But Isaiah makes it clear that "upon all the glory shall be a defence" (Isa. 4:5). England's John Owen delivered a sermon on the text in the 17th century that still warrants our attention today in regard to the matters you've brought up in your inquiry.
For the King,
Martin Selbrede
P.S. When Martin Luther said he'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian, I suspect he intended this as a lament that so few competent Christians could be found. Things haven't changed much since he voiced that sentiment. Chalcedon is dedicated to reversing that decline, on the principle that "the entering in of Thy words giveth light." Paul taught that there are mightier weapons available than the carnal ones we tend to default to far too often. As Hengstenberg said, and as I'm fond of quoting, the Word of God is the solvent of all institutions not based on itself. This is the key.
