Chalcedon Blog

Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President

Q. Where do you see the influence of Reconstructionism most clearly in the past and today?

I should point out that "being influential" had better NOT be a goal for Christian Reconstruction: after all, Jeremiah ministered for 20 years and got virtually nowhere: his ministry from the viewpoint of "influence" was a colossal failure. However, he did everything God asked him to do, and was utterly faithful to his calling. In the same vein, Christian Reconstructionists are (or should be) more interested in being faithful stewards of the most compellingly Biblical approach to applying the Scriptures to the world at large, and then to let the unleashing of that Word be the ultimate source of influence.

Allow me to quote at length from an article of mine published in late 2005 in regard to this question:

In one of my talks at Chalcedon's recent 40th Anniversary Conference in Georgia, I alluded to a question posed to me by a Bay Area atheist group during a telephone interview the month before. The atheists were curious how I would measure the success of Christian Reconstruction. From their reaction to my answers, I'd guess that they expected me to wax enthusiastic over the supposed impact the Christian Right has had on national politics in general, and on the Republican Party in particular. None of these indices found their way into my response to the atheists, who expected me to couch my reply in statist terms (a framework they appear to find both intelligible and credible). Confounding statist expectations, I proposed two goals that, if met, would signal the success of Christian Reconstruction. I further insisted that until these two goals were achieved, any other alleged "successes" of Christian Reconstruction would, like bandaids applied to a compound fracture, be mere window dressing: superficial, meaningless, and ephemeral.

What two things would indicate that Christian Reconstruction had been successful? First, that Christians tithe all the tithes commanded in the Bible: the Levitical tithe, the poor tithe, and the rejoicing tithe. All of it. Every last, decentralizing, state de-bloating cent of it. Second, that the tithe is applied as commanded in Scripture (e.g., Neh. 10:38), with only a tithe of the tithe directed to institutional worship, but 90% of the tithe directed to Levitical functions (in particular, education of children).

These two things go in tandem: so long as Christians won't tithe, the short-changed Church will be tempted to gratuitously identify itself with Malachi's storehouse to avoid the implications of Neh. 10:38. But even if Christians did tithe, the Church's misallocation of the tithe would completely undermine that fact, fostering ecclesiastical bloat. If God asserts He is robbed when individuals withhold the full tithe, will He hold churches blameless that misapply 90% of the collected tithe? We'd expect that He will prosper, not the ecclesiocentric churches, but the basiliocentric (kingdom-centered) churches that obey His Word on the matter of the tithe, given that judgment begins at the house of God.

In short, when Christians put their money where their preachy mouth is, and churches trust God and obey the injunction of Neh. 10:38, Christian Reconstruction can acknowledge a major success. The cultural implications of these two indices will be deep, lasting, and will snowball. Until that time, both individuals and churches are illegitimately dipping their hands into God's pockets -- in different ways, assuredly, but no less culpably.

So, what is going on culturally in the mean time? Christians are looking for quick political fixes, and are equating any perceived progress on such fronts as rip-roaring successes. It is instructive, then, to consider the rip-roaring successes achieved by King Josiah, the greatest king of the Old Testament by Scriptural acclamation.

The scriptures that speak of Josiah's reign should bring tears of joy and recognition to those sympathetic to Christian Reconstruction. The fact is, notwithstanding the astonishing strides under Josiah, the reconstruction was short-lived and finally collapsed catastrophically under the reign of Zedekiah. The reconstruction, particularly among the populace at large, had no root in itself. It's as if the cultural flip-side to "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees..." is "unless your reconstruction exceeds that of King Josiah..." But make no mistake: if we, today, were enjoying even a fifth of the progress that Josiah's cultural piledriver had achieved, many Christians would equate that with a miraculous, world-wide success. So we must continually remind ourselves that "these things happened to them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition" (I Cor. 10:11). Only unshakeable things can remain when God moves in history.

John Peter Lange brings home the meaning of counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:28-30) in words that apply both to Josiah's reform and our own era. "The beginning signifies nothing unless it leads to the end; a good ending is impossible without careful calculation and continually renewed exertion of all inward powers... So long as the City of God shows so many incomplete towers and heaps of ruins, it cannot possibly make upon its enemies the impression of an impregnable fortress."

All that being said (to get our gauges properly calibrated, so to speak), I think that the influence of Christian Reconstruction can be seen in the realm of Christian education (home schooling and private Christian schooling). The renaissance of postmillennial thinking, which was regarded as an utterly dead eschatology ("with no living voice raised in its defense"), can be attributed largely to Christian Reconstruction's ascent. The fact that "the third use of the Law" is a debate that was freshly invigorated, not by the neo-Puritans (surprisingly), but by the Christian Reconstructionists, is also a significant element of influence (which is still on-going, needless to say).

Institutionally (which is the way humanists predominantly think and organize information), Christian Reconstructionists have had what I suppose could be called "second tier influence." They have proliferated in other ministries, not at the very top rank, but in positions just below that level. Over the years, their leaven has penetrated the proverbial three measures of meal, but we've yet to see "all of it leavened." It is a work in progress, as yet incomplete, and perhaps never to be fully completed. The enemies of Christian activism generally blame the influence of Christian Reconstruction for putting dangerously theocratic aspirations into the heads of people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Such oversimplifications aren't terribly accurate, and the "T word" (theocracy) is used as an epithet in complete ignorance of how Christian Reconstruction defines that term. It frightens humanists that ANYONE would appeal to an authority higher than the civil government -- to a King of Kings who challenges the state's authority to legalize abortion, for example. Before Christian Reconstruction arose, it was assumed that if the government persecuted you and imprisoned you, you probably deserved it. Seeing the state as a false messiah, as a Hegelian "god walking on earth" with clay feet, is distinctive to the anti-humanism inherent in Christian Reconstruction.

In any event, while we are grateful for ANY positive influence we may have on other ministries, I stand by my extended 2005 quote above as providing the only realistic canon for gauging the ultimate influence generated by Christian Reconstruction in this generation.