Q&A on Christian Reconstruction, Part I
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Q: Would it be correct to describe Reconstructionism as a theological position that an organisation, for example, to some extent can apply in their work? Or would a more adequate description define Reconstructionism as a movement with certain founders, organizations, and important books?
If Christian Reconstruction IS a theological position that, in the nature of the case, generates an impetus for society-wide application, we might expect there to be (1) important books that set forth that position, (2) that if this theological position is being recovered from a preceding era of neglect, that its recovery by men skilled in advocating it would give the impression those men are founders of whatever juggernaut that recovery might set in motion, and (3) if the theological position is Biblically correct, but the institutional churches become either hostile to it or refuse to embrace it, one might expect para-church institutions to promote that position in the sense Israel's prophets promoted God's perspective outside the confines of Israel's conventional religious institutions.
So, Christian Reconstruction is in fact a theological position, but the nature of that theological position sets the other elements in motion given the context in which we find ourselves. The question therefore presupposes an inaccurate dichotomy, because a theological position with the propositional content of Christian Reconstruction, in conjunction with where we find ourselves in Christendom, creates the dynamic that leads to "founders, organizations, and important books."
As has been documented elsewhere, the heritage of Christian Reconstruction as a theological position is traceable from Augustine through Calvin through Kuyper into the 20th century, each iteration providing a more consistently Biblical formulation than previously achieved. The counter-trend toward studied indifference and irrelevance merely heightened the contrast between Christian Reconstruction and so-called mainstream Christianity with its propensity for subsidizing humanistic/modernistic in-roads into the faith. It is the "conceit" of Christian Reconstruction that it represents Biblical moral imperatives more accurately than other approaches to biblical hermeneutics. If true, Gamaliel's observation would hold that attempts to quash or suppress Christian Reconstruction might find themselves fighting against God Himself.
An "adequate description" would indeed characterize Christian Reconstruction as a theological position, but one so potent in societal/cultural implications that a natural incarnation of the position in "founders, organisations, and important books" was a foregone conclusion. An "incarnation" of a position among its adherents may share all the earmarks of a "movement," and movements are known to run their course and die. Christian Reconstruction has been heralded as dead as well, on the supposition that it is a movement rather than a theological position. Consult my recent article "By Faith He Still Speaks: Rushdoony's Big Idea" to see how he was merely putting some meat on the bones of the Westminster Shorter Catechism's first question, wherein lies the ultimately inexorable strength of Christian Reconstruction. "Whatsoever thing the Lord hath not planted shall be rooted up," we're informed at Matt. 15:13 -- if Christian Reconstruction thrives and expands, it may well be because the Lord has indeed planted it.
Q: Would it be correct to describe Reconstructionism as a theological position that an organisation, for example, to some extent can apply in their work? Or would a more adequate description define Reconstructionism as a movement with certain founders, organizations, and important books?
If Christian Reconstruction IS a theological position that, in the nature of the case, generates an impetus for society-wide application, we might expect there to be (1) important books that set forth that position, (2) that if this theological position is being recovered from a preceding era of neglect, that its recovery by men skilled in advocating it would give the impression those men are founders of whatever juggernaut that recovery might set in motion, and (3) if the theological position is Biblically correct, but the institutional churches become either hostile to it or refuse to embrace it, one might expect para-church institutions to promote that position in the sense Israel's prophets promoted God's perspective outside the confines of Israel's conventional religious institutions.
So, Christian Reconstruction is in fact a theological position, but the nature of that theological position sets the other elements in motion given the context in which we find ourselves. The question therefore presupposes an inaccurate dichotomy, because a theological position with the propositional content of Christian Reconstruction, in conjunction with where we find ourselves in Christendom, creates the dynamic that leads to "founders, organizations, and important books."
As has been documented elsewhere, the heritage of Christian Reconstruction as a theological position is traceable from Augustine through Calvin through Kuyper into the 20th century, each iteration providing a more consistently Biblical formulation than previously achieved. The counter-trend toward studied indifference and irrelevance merely heightened the contrast between Christian Reconstruction and so-called mainstream Christianity with its propensity for subsidizing humanistic/modernistic in-roads into the faith. It is the "conceit" of Christian Reconstruction that it represents Biblical moral imperatives more accurately than other approaches to biblical hermeneutics. If true, Gamaliel's observation would hold that attempts to quash or suppress Christian Reconstruction might find themselves fighting against God Himself.
An "adequate description" would indeed characterize Christian Reconstruction as a theological position, but one so potent in societal/cultural implications that a natural incarnation of the position in "founders, organisations, and important books" was a foregone conclusion. An "incarnation" of a position among its adherents may share all the earmarks of a "movement," and movements are known to run their course and die. Christian Reconstruction has been heralded as dead as well, on the supposition that it is a movement rather than a theological position. Consult my recent article "By Faith He Still Speaks: Rushdoony's Big Idea" to see how he was merely putting some meat on the bones of the Westminster Shorter Catechism's first question, wherein lies the ultimately inexorable strength of Christian Reconstruction. "Whatsoever thing the Lord hath not planted shall be rooted up," we're informed at Matt. 15:13 -- if Christian Reconstruction thrives and expands, it may well be because the Lord has indeed planted it.
