Talk2Action vs. Christian Dominion
Contemporary critics of Christian Reconstruction abound. There's simply no reason to make the effort in responding to them all. And with the advent of the internet, the proliferation of wrong information is multiplied incalculably as armchair theocracy experts repeat the misconstrued concept of Biblical dominion.
However, I would like to make mention of the most recent example brought to my attention, because this particular post addresses the Chalcedon blog, and demonstrates the odd reluctance of some bloggers to research.
In response to my recent post regarding Dr. George Grant's unwise analogy (IMHO) of the Crusades in framing the Christian confrontation with Islam, Mr. Bruce Wilson at Talk2Action engages in an odd exercise of guesswork as to why I offered criticism to a respected reformed leader like George Grant:
Hopefully, this post will aid Mr. Wilson and others to better understand both my intents and the genuine theocracy advocated by Chalcedon.
First, my published opposition to war with Iran has nothing to do with any concern for "scorched earth." War with Iran would be immoral, just as war with Iraq is immoral. In fact, the entire neoconservative push for hegemonic control of the Middle East is wrong. I hold to the foreign policy of George Washington, not George W. Bush.
Second, opposition to war is in harmony with Chalcedon's ethical position, not it's eschatological position. Our critics should be aware of the importance we place on Biblical law, and that morality precedes prognostications about the future of our world.
In light of this I am deeply concerned about the source of much of the Middle East conflagration: the Palestinians. The utter nightmare that is daily life for most Palestinians is one of the greatest sins of our time, and I'm afraid much of the Palestinian blood being spilled is found on the hands of Christian Zionists. This is where eschatology is playing a factor. Pop-Dispensationalism is a faithful advocate of the Israeli suppression of the Palestinians, as well as loyal flag-wavers for the war party.
Third, is this inexcusable portrayal of Christian Reconstruction as the imposition of "Christian theonomic rule -- government under Biblical law (as parsed by RJ Rushdoony) -- and only after 1,000 years of theonomic rule will Jesus finally return." Wilson should have read by now our often-published statement:
Lastly, Christian theocracy is not the imposition of Biblical law on the unwilling. It is not the rule of a religious elite. Christian theocracy is self-government in terms of God's law. We choose the term theocracy very carefully, i.e. "the rule of God." We did not choose the term ecclesiocracy -- the rule of the church.
We do not support a religious takeover of the state. The idea is ridiculous. Financial and corporate interests would never allow such a coup. The Christian Right is being manipulated and used because of their sizable electoral power. However, they see politics in the prepared categories of Left and Right. This is why they do not recognize statism when Conservatives are in power.
Wilson is correct about one item: we do have a "long view of history." We believe it will take a great many years before the majority of the world would be both Christian and faithful. It would also take that long before you witnessed the application of Biblical law in any comprehensive fashion. For this reason, Chalcedon emphasizes ideas, because it is only ideas that can be preserved over succeeding generations.
I don't expect Mr. Wilson to change his perspective. I don't expect anyone that far to the Left to move towards objectivity. Especially when sensationalism sells. This should speak volumes on behalf of Chalcedon since we try to avoid demonization or sensationalism. When most of the Christian Right is pushing for war, we stand critical. When conservative Christians are enamored with political influence, we push for self-government and the family. When the Religious Right is marching lock-step with the GOP, we are highlighting the fascistic element. When our constituency is seeking to "Reclaim America," we are admonishing our readers to greater faithfulness.
This is why we're probably the least funded of any theocratic organization -- because we're soon becoming the only truly theocratic organization. We don't prop up false enemies in order to create outrage. Only those with a long-term view of Christian civilization will understand and support our mission. This bespeaks of the fact that we are very much in the same position as Rushdoony outlined in his very first newsletter (1965) to his small host of supporters:
Christian Reconstruction is not about debating the sovereignty of God, or the doctrines of grace. Rushdoony held that sovereignty was a source of comfort for the Christian, not something to debate. Christian Reconstruction is applied Calvinism. The glory of God is to fill the earth; and that glory is to be presented by the good works of God's obedient people as they deal lawfully with their neighbor.
Comprehending the true doctrines advocated by R. J. Rushdoony requires a good deal of reading. For some reason, bloggers like Mr. Wilson eschew the diligence necessary to report our ideas accurately. But, in a sense, these guys are about as marginal as we are. Maybe we just need each other to pick on. It gives us something to write about.
However, I would like to make mention of the most recent example brought to my attention, because this particular post addresses the Chalcedon blog, and demonstrates the odd reluctance of some bloggers to research.
In response to my recent post regarding Dr. George Grant's unwise analogy (IMHO) of the Crusades in framing the Christian confrontation with Islam, Mr. Bruce Wilson at Talk2Action engages in an odd exercise of guesswork as to why I offered criticism to a respected reformed leader like George Grant:
The Chalcedon Foundation's apparent opposition to a US and / or Israeli attack on Iran is consistent with Chalcedon's theological positions. Christian Reconstructionist theology is post-Millennial meaning ; Reconstructionists feel that --instead of triggering events leading to the Tribulation, the Apocalypse, and Armageddon that must precede the Second Coming-- they instead must impose Christian theonomic rule - government under Biblical Law ( as parsed by RJ Rushdoony ) - and only after 1,000 years of theonomic rule will Jesus finally return.Essentially, I'm dissenting from George Grant because I want to insure the world is preserved from nuclear devastation in order that the theocratic dream of postmillennialism is fulfilled. In all honesty, I'm dumbfounded. This is the height of conspiratorial speculation. Mr. Wilson is grossly misinformed as to both my intent as well as the theocracy we advocate. How could he possibly know my reasons? And why bother speculating if you want to maintain respectability for your web site? Why take the risk?
That theological view should lead Reconstructionists to take a very long view of history because, in Reconstructionist theology, the world is to be preserved, not blown up. So based on that ( I would assume ) Chris Ortiz, takes George Grant and reformed theonomists to task for jumping on the "demonize Islam" bandwagon
Hopefully, this post will aid Mr. Wilson and others to better understand both my intents and the genuine theocracy advocated by Chalcedon.
First, my published opposition to war with Iran has nothing to do with any concern for "scorched earth." War with Iran would be immoral, just as war with Iraq is immoral. In fact, the entire neoconservative push for hegemonic control of the Middle East is wrong. I hold to the foreign policy of George Washington, not George W. Bush.
Second, opposition to war is in harmony with Chalcedon's ethical position, not it's eschatological position. Our critics should be aware of the importance we place on Biblical law, and that morality precedes prognostications about the future of our world.
In light of this I am deeply concerned about the source of much of the Middle East conflagration: the Palestinians. The utter nightmare that is daily life for most Palestinians is one of the greatest sins of our time, and I'm afraid much of the Palestinian blood being spilled is found on the hands of Christian Zionists. This is where eschatology is playing a factor. Pop-Dispensationalism is a faithful advocate of the Israeli suppression of the Palestinians, as well as loyal flag-wavers for the war party.
Third, is this inexcusable portrayal of Christian Reconstruction as the imposition of "Christian theonomic rule -- government under Biblical law (as parsed by RJ Rushdoony) -- and only after 1,000 years of theonomic rule will Jesus finally return." Wilson should have read by now our often-published statement:
"No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God's sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced."Fourth, most postmillennialists do not believe the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 are literal. Nor do they believe that they will somehow usher in the return of Christ. Postmillennial eschatology is so well documented that it is inexcusable that Talk2Action writers would make such repeated errors about basic beliefs. If your web site is dedicated to resisting Christian theocracy, shouldn't you read up on the subject?
Lastly, Christian theocracy is not the imposition of Biblical law on the unwilling. It is not the rule of a religious elite. Christian theocracy is self-government in terms of God's law. We choose the term theocracy very carefully, i.e. "the rule of God." We did not choose the term ecclesiocracy -- the rule of the church.
We do not support a religious takeover of the state. The idea is ridiculous. Financial and corporate interests would never allow such a coup. The Christian Right is being manipulated and used because of their sizable electoral power. However, they see politics in the prepared categories of Left and Right. This is why they do not recognize statism when Conservatives are in power.
Wilson is correct about one item: we do have a "long view of history." We believe it will take a great many years before the majority of the world would be both Christian and faithful. It would also take that long before you witnessed the application of Biblical law in any comprehensive fashion. For this reason, Chalcedon emphasizes ideas, because it is only ideas that can be preserved over succeeding generations.
I don't expect Mr. Wilson to change his perspective. I don't expect anyone that far to the Left to move towards objectivity. Especially when sensationalism sells. This should speak volumes on behalf of Chalcedon since we try to avoid demonization or sensationalism. When most of the Christian Right is pushing for war, we stand critical. When conservative Christians are enamored with political influence, we push for self-government and the family. When the Religious Right is marching lock-step with the GOP, we are highlighting the fascistic element. When our constituency is seeking to "Reclaim America," we are admonishing our readers to greater faithfulness.
This is why we're probably the least funded of any theocratic organization -- because we're soon becoming the only truly theocratic organization. We don't prop up false enemies in order to create outrage. Only those with a long-term view of Christian civilization will understand and support our mission. This bespeaks of the fact that we are very much in the same position as Rushdoony outlined in his very first newsletter (1965) to his small host of supporters:
This movement (humanism) has been a long time in developing: it cannot be defeated overnight. It cannot be defeated by short-sighted people who want victory today or tomorrow, and are unwilling to support long-term battle. The future must be won, and shall be won, by a renewal and development of our historic Christian liberty, by an emphasis on the fact: the basic government is the self-government of the Christian man, and by a recognition that an informed faith is the mainspring of victory.This is Christian Reconstruction. It's not "Reclaiming America" or debating the religious intent of our founding fathers. It's about the Kingdom of God and it's expansion through daily faithfulness to God's law by dedicated individuals serving their King. In this respect, we are as concerned about washing dishes as we are economics.
Christian Reconstruction is not about debating the sovereignty of God, or the doctrines of grace. Rushdoony held that sovereignty was a source of comfort for the Christian, not something to debate. Christian Reconstruction is applied Calvinism. The glory of God is to fill the earth; and that glory is to be presented by the good works of God's obedient people as they deal lawfully with their neighbor.
Comprehending the true doctrines advocated by R. J. Rushdoony requires a good deal of reading. For some reason, bloggers like Mr. Wilson eschew the diligence necessary to report our ideas accurately. But, in a sense, these guys are about as marginal as we are. Maybe we just need each other to pick on. It gives us something to write about.
