Law as a Form of Warfare
Most of the critics of Christian Reconstruction are relatively harmless paranoids. You take them with a grain of salt, and you try to giggle your way through their diatribes. The folks that provide me the most laughter are the sardonic Christophobics at MoreTalkThanAction, a.k.a Talk2Action. I've always enjoyed the heretical Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist. He's funny because he stumbles more than the Keystone Cops:
Prescott's pitting of theocracy over against democracy also miscontrues the meaning of theocracy, viz. the rule of God. We advocate theocracy right now, not down the road. I am a practicing theocrat now, and that has no bearing on whether America embraces Christian theocratic principles. I live under the rule of God and His law now.
He cites Rushdoony's position of the religious nature of law, and the fact that law is a form of warfare, as if it's some sort of grand exposure. In doing so, Prescott makes Rushdoony's point. Prescott, an anti-inerrancy "Christian", opposes with fear the notion that a Biblical order would rule in America. Prescott raises opposition to this. Why? Because law is a form of warfare! And Prescott feels threatened. It's also because law is religious in nature. If it wasn't, we wouldn't hear a peep from Prescott. We only hear from him because God's law directly opposes the divinity he places in man's law.
He finishes with the usual Christophobic smear that Reconstructionists are going to take up arms to impose their theocracy. This is inexcusable. Rushdoony never hinted that violence or force would ever be used in the progress of Christian civilization. First, Rushdoony advocated a significantly decentralized state and Prescott assumes Rushdoony wants the reins of the present bureaucracy. This doesn't comport. Second, Rushdoony was clear that the advancement of the Kingdom of God in history is based upon regeneration, not revolution. Third, Prescott's limited citation of Rushdoony's thought more than loses the context--Prescott's obvious intention as a fear technician. Here's what Rushdoony wrote:
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 93.
If Rushdoony and his disciples have their way, democracy will be abolished and a Christian theocracy will be established. A theocracy based on the Bible along the lines of John Cotton's Massachusetts Bay Colony. Rushdoony wrote, "The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion." (p. 113) He also made it clear that he expects that force will be necessary to impose such order, "Every law-order is in a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare." (p. 93)Democracy abolished? You're sadly mistaken. If you're advocating pure democracy, Mr. Prescott, you're just a few steps away from outright Communism. Rushdoony disdains pure democracies, and that is quite in line with our founding fathers. Democracy is summarized as equality under law. It is a political process, and it used in the United States in a procedural sense to serve our Constitutional Republic and its rule of law. The debate, Mr. Prescott, is not between democracy and theocracy, but over which law shall undergird morality.
Prescott's pitting of theocracy over against democracy also miscontrues the meaning of theocracy, viz. the rule of God. We advocate theocracy right now, not down the road. I am a practicing theocrat now, and that has no bearing on whether America embraces Christian theocratic principles. I live under the rule of God and His law now.
He cites Rushdoony's position of the religious nature of law, and the fact that law is a form of warfare, as if it's some sort of grand exposure. In doing so, Prescott makes Rushdoony's point. Prescott, an anti-inerrancy "Christian", opposes with fear the notion that a Biblical order would rule in America. Prescott raises opposition to this. Why? Because law is a form of warfare! And Prescott feels threatened. It's also because law is religious in nature. If it wasn't, we wouldn't hear a peep from Prescott. We only hear from him because God's law directly opposes the divinity he places in man's law.
He finishes with the usual Christophobic smear that Reconstructionists are going to take up arms to impose their theocracy. This is inexcusable. Rushdoony never hinted that violence or force would ever be used in the progress of Christian civilization. First, Rushdoony advocated a significantly decentralized state and Prescott assumes Rushdoony wants the reins of the present bureaucracy. This doesn't comport. Second, Rushdoony was clear that the advancement of the Kingdom of God in history is based upon regeneration, not revolution. Third, Prescott's limited citation of Rushdoony's thought more than loses the context--Prescott's obvious intention as a fear technician. Here's what Rushdoony wrote:
In brief, every law-order is a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare. Every law declares that certain offenders are enemies of the law-order and must be arrested. For limited offenses, there are limited penalties; for capital offences, capital punishment. Law is a state of war; it is the organization of the powers of civil government to bring enemies of the law-order to justice. [1]I think Rushdoony is quite clear, and his thesis axiomatic. He's speaking of law in general, and he means that the law-order of any state is opposed to those criminals or enemies that seek to destroy or disrupt it. Police, for example, are the soldiers of that army. This is by no means a suggestion that Reconstructionists will view any opposition in the American legal system as grounds for taking up arms to impose Biblical law. Lastly, the use of the term "warfare" is not to be taken literally in all instances. Intellectual engagement is also a form of warfare, in addition to a police officer arresting a thief. This should be readily understood by the likes of Prescott.
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 93.
