Q&A on Christian Reconstruction, Part 2
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Q: Depending on how one might answer that first question: Is it at all possible to determine how many Reconstructionists there are?
I suppose there's a difference between being a "functional reconstructionist" versus being a "card-carrying reconstructionist." Efforts have been underway for decades to turn the label "Christian Reconstruction" into a demeaning slur, with "theonomist" and "postmillennialist" not too far behind in disapprobation. This campaign, waged both inside the Reformed camp and outside among evangelicals and dispensationalists, has been effective enough to cause reconstructionists to debate whether or not to drop the label, as if it had become the kiss of death to be known as a Christian Reconstructionist. When books with titles like Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? come down in favor of the verdict "Curse!", we see that the polemics of perception have not been handled well by reconstructionists because they naively assumed that their views would be adjudicated on the biblical merits. If they're unfairly smeared and publish a thorough defense, they're labeled as combative Christians who disturb the peace of the Church. "The land cannot bear all their words." (Amos 7:10) So many who are inclined to be sympathetic to the distinctives of Christian Reconstruction tend to distance themselves from the grief of wearing a label that the position's enemies have so effectively tarnished in the public imagination. It takes some moral courage to adopt the label. (It should be noted that "Christian" itself was originally a term of derision).
It takes a different kind of moral courage to be a functional reconstructionist without the formal label. If one were to be expansive in structuring such an enumeration, one would have to conclude that parents who repudiate public education and either home school their children or send them to Christian schools in lieu of government schools, are in effect acting as functional reconstructionists. The more consistently Biblical an individual becomes, the closer to the so-called card-carrying reconstructionist he or she might become. There is, therefore, a spectrum of theological consistency, and people fall in different places along the gradient. Where does one draw the line? Moreover, some people who are functional reconstructionists often reflect internal inconsistency with their own theological positions. We would regard that as a happy inconsistency (their deeds are praiseworthy, but their theology is problematic). Do we treat them as anti-reconstructionists in light of their words, or as functional reconstructionists in light of their actual conduct? This complicates the picture in determining the question "how many?"
Q: Depending on how one might answer that first question: Is it at all possible to determine how many Reconstructionists there are?
I suppose there's a difference between being a "functional reconstructionist" versus being a "card-carrying reconstructionist." Efforts have been underway for decades to turn the label "Christian Reconstruction" into a demeaning slur, with "theonomist" and "postmillennialist" not too far behind in disapprobation. This campaign, waged both inside the Reformed camp and outside among evangelicals and dispensationalists, has been effective enough to cause reconstructionists to debate whether or not to drop the label, as if it had become the kiss of death to be known as a Christian Reconstructionist. When books with titles like Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? come down in favor of the verdict "Curse!", we see that the polemics of perception have not been handled well by reconstructionists because they naively assumed that their views would be adjudicated on the biblical merits. If they're unfairly smeared and publish a thorough defense, they're labeled as combative Christians who disturb the peace of the Church. "The land cannot bear all their words." (Amos 7:10) So many who are inclined to be sympathetic to the distinctives of Christian Reconstruction tend to distance themselves from the grief of wearing a label that the position's enemies have so effectively tarnished in the public imagination. It takes some moral courage to adopt the label. (It should be noted that "Christian" itself was originally a term of derision).
It takes a different kind of moral courage to be a functional reconstructionist without the formal label. If one were to be expansive in structuring such an enumeration, one would have to conclude that parents who repudiate public education and either home school their children or send them to Christian schools in lieu of government schools, are in effect acting as functional reconstructionists. The more consistently Biblical an individual becomes, the closer to the so-called card-carrying reconstructionist he or she might become. There is, therefore, a spectrum of theological consistency, and people fall in different places along the gradient. Where does one draw the line? Moreover, some people who are functional reconstructionists often reflect internal inconsistency with their own theological positions. We would regard that as a happy inconsistency (their deeds are praiseworthy, but their theology is problematic). Do we treat them as anti-reconstructionists in light of their words, or as functional reconstructionists in light of their actual conduct? This complicates the picture in determining the question "how many?"
