News Intelligence Analysis
From Crownrights.com
Judicial Warfare:
The Christian Reconstruction Movement and its Blueprints for Dominion
by Greg Loren Durand
[Editor's Note: Greg Loren Durand is a former Christian Reconstructionist who has written a valuable critique. His entire book is available for free as web pages.]
Introduction
The influence of the Reconstruction movement, also known as Theonomy, is quite broad despite the admission of one of its founders that it is “a recently articulated philosophy,”(1) “unquestionably new,” “a major break” with two thousand years of Church history, and a “theological revolution.”(2) Even though Reconstructionists often claim Dutch Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til as the forerunner of their movement,(3) the true “father” of Reconstructionism was the late Rousas John Rushdoony,(4) a former ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who published the “bible” of the movement — Institutes of Biblical Law — in 1973. About the same time, Greg L. Bahnsen wrote his Th.M. thesis entitled "The Theonomic Responsibility of the Civil Magistrate," which was later published as Theonomy in Christian Ethics. This work caused an uproar throughout the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, of which body Bahnsen was also an ordained minister.(5) Both Rushdoony and Bahnsen are now deceased, but their work is continued by The Chalcedon Foundation in Vallecito, California, The Southern California Center for Christian Studies in Placentia, California, and The Bahnsen Theological Seminary, which offers theological degrees through its correspondence courses.
However, the most articulate and influential of the movement’s
spokesmen is Gary North, who “studied directly under Rushdoony,”(6) and has written nearly two dozen
volumes over the last thirty years, some of which are well over
1,000 pages in length.(7) North did
serious damage to his own credibility with his failed predictions
that the “Y2K computer bug” would bring the world to
a standstill,(8) and he is now attempting
to establish a new public image as a website design consultant.(9)
Other less visible notables in the Reconstruction camp are Kenneth
L. Gentry, Gary DeMar, and the late David Chilton. Christian
political conservatism (often referred to by its opponents as
“The Religious Right”) has become so infiltrated by
Reconstructionism that the two have become almost synonymous
terms of late. One of the most tenaciously-held beliefs of Christian
conservatives is that the United States was founded as a Christian
nation and must therefore be restored to its biblical roots.(10) The
Christian homeschool movement has also proven to be fertile soil
for the growth of Reconstructionist ideas and Rushdoony is often
credited with being the “Moses” who led the exodus
of Christian children from the public school system. In fact,
the Homeschool Legal Defense Association was founded in 1983
by Michael Farris, one of Rushdoony’s followers, gaining
over fifteen thousand members within the first seven years of
its existence. Other organizations
which have openly adopted or have at least been heavily influenced
by Reconstructionism are Pat Robertson’s 700 Club,
his Christian Broadcasting Network and Regent College, Jay Sekulow’s
American Center for Law and Justice, Randall Terry’s Operation
Rescue, Howard Phillips’ Constitution Party (formerly, the
U.S. Taxpayers Party), and David Barton’s Wallbuilders,
Inc. Some organizations which formerly were associated with Reconstructionism,
such as the Rutherford Institute, have now distanced themselves
from the movement.(11)
The Reconstructionists are not content to be ignored and they
certainly will not go away if the Christian Church does ignore
them.(12) One thing that may be said
in their praise: they are a zealous people. However, zeal is
of no value if it is attached to a serious error (Romans 10:2),
which I have come to believe is an apt description of Reconstructionism.
I write this book as one who was, until very recently, one of
their number. I have read most of the books written by their
leading authors and have relied upon their arguments (and often
even their caustic manner of presenting these arguments (13))
in writing some of my own books and articles (which have now
been pulled from circulation). I am of the historic Reformed
faith as enumerated in the Westminster Standards and am not a
Dispensationalist. I feel that I have to disclaim the latter
because the followers of Reconstructionism are often taught to
accuse their critics of Dispensationalism, or at least of having
been influenced by Dispensational hermeneutics.(14)
Indeed, some of the most vocal critics of the movement have been
Dr. Norman Geisler, Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, and Dave Hunt —
all Dispensationalists. Due to the fundamental error of the latter
system, these writers have been unable to adequately address
the errors of Reconstructionism, and have often completely misrepresented
the object of their critique.(15)
It is ironic, however, to note that some of the more salient
features of Dispensationalism also find expression in Reconstructionism.
For example, both systems either obscure or openly deny the biblical
identification of Christ’s Kingdom as the Church and both
expect a future earthly dominion for God’s covenant people,
although they differ in their identification of who those people
are and when that dominion will commence. Amillennialism, the
majority eschatological view of the historic Reformed faith,
stands aloof from both Dispensationalism and Reconstructionism
in locating the present and very real reign of God’s people
in ”heavenly places” where Scripture also locates it
(Ephesians 2:6). For that reason, it is often referred to as
“Realized Millennialism.”(16)
Given the voluminous literature that has been produced by the
leading Reconstructionists over the last thirty years, it will
not be possible for me to respond to everything they have written.
My purpose here is not to offer an exhaustive rebuttal of the
movement,(17) but a “reader’s
digest” overview which will hopefully prove to be a handy
guide to those who lack the time and patience to wade through
the endless verbiage produced by the Reconstructionists in order
to learn what they really teach. The reader may be assured that
this author, himself a former Reconstructionist, knows what the
main pillars of the system are and what arguments are relied
upon to uphold the structure.(18)
It is my hope and prayer that the Lord will use what I have written
in the following pages to awaken the Reformed community to the
errors of Reconstructionism.
Endnotes
1. Gary North, Backward Christian Soldiers? (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), page 267.
2. Gary North, Tools of Dominion (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), page 7.
3. Gary North, Political Polytheism (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), page 162; Gary North, Theonomy: An Informed Response (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), pages 16-17. Although his anti-natural law approach to apologetics laid the groundwork for Reconstructionism, Van Til himself disclaimed affiliation with the movement, writing, “Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in the principles I hold” (letter to Gregg Singer, 11 May 1972; cited in North, Political Polytheism, page 133fn).
According to Van Til, “the natural [unregenerate] man is
as blind as a mole with respect to natural things as well as
with respect to spiritual things” (Introduction to Systematic
Theology [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1974], page 82), and “the natural man
does not, on his principles, have any knowledge of the truth”
(Common Grace and the Gospel [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972], page 184). To a Van Tilian,
therefore, there can be no such thing as natural revelation,
natural religion, and natural law. Therefore, the natural man
has to be constantly “stealing” from the revealed Christian
worldview in order to make sense of the world around him: “Men
need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism [Trinitarianism]
in order to account for their own accomplishments” (The
Defense of the Faith [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955], page 120), and “the
Christian theist must claim that he alone has true knowledge
about cows and chickens as well as about God” (Metaphysics
of Apologetics [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1931], page 194). In Chapters Four and Five
of the present book, the reader will see how the application
of Van Tilianism to the civil realm has led the Reconstructionists
to insist upon revealed biblical law as the only legitimate source
of the governmental authority, and why some of the movement’s
leaders have openly denounced the historic Reformed understanding
of the role of the magistrate as “heretical nonsense.”
For a good critique of Van Til's presuppositionalism, see "A
Critique of Cornelius Van Til: Being a Defense of Traditional
Evidential Christian Apologetics."
4. Reference: Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Fort Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1988), page 184; Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., essay: "A Tribute to the Father of Christian Reconstruction."
5. According to Gary North and Gary DeMar, "Turmoil began soon, when Bahnsen came under fire in the Southern California Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he was seeking ordination. It took him two years to gain it, and some of the same elders who fought him then are still trying to undermine him today" (Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't [Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991], page xiii. I was a member of the OPC from 1993 through 1996, and I know of the controversy in that denomination over Bahnsen's writings from first-hand experience.
6. Reference: North, Political Polytheism, page 21.
7. North’s magnum opus is his Tools of Dominion. In the introduction of this massive 1,287-page volume, North reveled in the fact that Tools is a “fat book” and compared it to Aurelius Augustine’s City of God, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, and even to the Bible itself (reference: North, Tools of Dominion, page 2). It is not long before the reader of North’s works will discover that humility is not one of his long suits.
8. Reference: www.garynorth.com/y2k.
9. Reference: www.garynorth.com.
10. Reference: John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987); David Barton, The Myth of Separation: What is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State? (Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder Press, 1992; David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion (Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder Press, 1997).
11. Rushdoony wrote the outline for Rutherford Institute founder John W. Whitehead's first book, The Separation Illusion: A Lawyer Examines the First Amendment (Fenton, Michigan: Mott Media, 1977), and served on the Institute's board of directors for several years (reference: Fred Clarkson, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy [Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1997], pages 92-93). In turn, Whitehead wrote the foreword to Gary DeMar's Ruler of the Nations (Fort Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987) and gave honorable mention to Rushdoony several times in his book, The Second American Revolution (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Company, 1982).
12. Gary North wrote, "Our critics... wish that theonomists would go away and leave them in their ethical slumber. We won't. That is what the 1980's demonstrated: theonomists will not go away. We will not shut up. Our critics can ignore us no longer and still remain intellectually respectable. We have written too much, and we continue to write" (Tools of Dominion, page 12).
13. Gary North, for example, is so notorious for using insulting invective to attack his critics that he has earned the nickname “Scary Gary.” One example of the attitude such men as North have towards anyone who dares to disagree with them is his interpretation of Matthew 5:39: ”But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” According to North, this and Christ’s other teachings in the Sermon on the Mount were merely “recommendations for the ethical conduct of a captive people." In the future theocratic Kingdom, when the roles have been reversed, North counseled his readers to react to an oppressor thusly: “Either bust him in the chops or haul him before the magistrate, and possibly both" (Gary North, essay: “In Defense of Biblical Bribery,” in Rousas John Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law [Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1973], page 846). A novel interpretation of Christian meekness, indeed.
14. In this regard, Gary North wrote:
Dispensationalists have in the past been ethically explicit, denying God's revealed law in the New Covenant era. They have been self-conscious theological antinomians. They have argued for decades that a person can be saved eternally by accepting Jesus as Savior but not as Lord, a radically antinomian and widely accepted opinion which one of their number has recently criticized quite eloquently. Nevertheless, most of the leading intellectual targets of our theological criticisms have publicly disassociated themselves from dispensationalism. They deeply resent being tarred and feathered by us with dispensationalism's antinomian brush, yet when they reply to our accusations, they adopt the hermeneutic of dispensationalism regarding the Old Testament case laws (Tools of Dominion, page 11).
Likewise, Gary DeMar stated:
What really sold me on studying the issue of theonomy was how weak the critics' arguments were in their attempts to ground the theonomic plane. In our classes related to covenant theology, classic Reformed (continuity) arguments were used against dispensationalism. When theonomy became an issue, students found that dispensational (discontinuity) arguments, the same arguments that were refuted in the classes related to covenant theology, were being used in an attempt to answer and discredit theonomy. Schizophrenia reigned in the mind of any thinking student (essay: "Theonomy and Calvinism's Judicial Theology," in Gary North (editor), Theonomy: An Informed Response [Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991], page 38).
15. John Maphet's assessment was accurate: "The worst misunderstandings and even misrepresentations of theonomy have come from dispensational circles.... This is to be expected, since the hermeneutical differences between dispensationalism and Reformed theology are rather severe" (essay: "A Pastor's Response to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique," in North, Theonomy: An Informed Response, page 296). What is in dire need is a solid response to Reconstructionism from within the Reformed community. Unfortunately, aside from the poorly documented 1990 critique from the staff of Westminster Seminary to which the above book was a response, not much has been presented.
16. Reference: Jay Adams, The Time is at Hand (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970).
17. Greg Bahnsen once attempted to deny that Reconstructionism is a movement:
I don't consider Christian Reconstruction a "movement," but rather a school of thought. Christian Reconstruction includes people from a number of denominations and traditions. It has no central authority, or chain of command, or any other sociological marks of a "movement." But it does have fundamental theological distinctives: the authority of scripture, with a presuppositional approach to apologetics, the idea of moral absolutes where all the Bible is ethically relevant, and an optimistic view of redemptive history. In short, while it is not a movement, Christian Reconstruction is a distinctive and challenging school of thought (Contra Mundum, Winter 1992).
DeMar and Leithart also made the same attempt in The Reduction
of Christianity (pages 30-31). However, something does not necessarily
require a central authority or a chain of command to qualify
as a "movement." Cases in point are the New Age movement,
the Pro-Life movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Christian
homeschool movement, or the Patriot movement. The dictionary
definition of a "movement" is "the activities
of a group of people to achieve a specific goal." Even though
the "group of people" involved in Reconstructionism
come from varying ecclesiastical backgrounds, they all are working
"to achieve a specific goal": the reconstruction of
modern society in terms of Old Testament law. Reconstructionism,
therefore, is indeed a movement.
Besides, the majority of Reconstructionist writers have not had
any qualms about identifying it as a "movement." For
example, in his book, Backwards Christian Soldiers?, Gary North
wrote, "The battle for the mind is between the Christian
reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups
takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else" (pages
65-66). Later in the same book, he went on to write:
The founders of the movement have combined four basic Christian beliefs into one overarching system 1) biblical law, 2) optimistic eschatology, 3) predestination (providence), and 4) presuppositional apologetics (philosophical defense of the faith). Not all CR's hold all four positions, but the founders held all four. The first person who put this system together publicly was Rousas John Rushdoony. He was my mentor during the 1960's, and while I was working on the specific field of economics, he was developing the overall framework. The first comprehensive introduction to the Christian Reconstruction position was Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law.... (page 267)
On the back cover of the above book, North was identified by his own publishing company as "the economist of the Christian Reconstruction Movement." In Tools of Dominion, North stated that "the Christian Reconstruction movement does represent a major break with recent church history" (page 7). In Political Polytheism, he admitted that Reconstructionism is a "new movement" which has created "new terms" and has "redefin[ed] old terms" in order to "lay additional foundations for a theological paradigm shift which has already begun" (page 52). In the same book, North wrote, "There are Christian Reconstructionists who are Arminians, but they do not write for the general public. The leadership of the movement has been Calvinist" (page 155, footnote). He also stated that Cornelius Van Til's apologetic method "launched the Christian Reconstruction movement" (page 162), and referred to the 1980s as "a watershed period for the Christian Reconstruction movement...." and mentioned Bill Moyers' 1987 three-part series on Christianity and politics, the third part of which "was devoted exclusively to the Christian Reconstruction movement" (page 214). In the book description for Christian Reconstruction What It Is, What It Isn't (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), which North co-authored with Gary DeMar, he wrote, "Christian Reconstruction is a theological system, a movement of independent activists, and a cultural ideal." In an August 1995 letter to I.C.E. subscribers, North gave tips on how "to become part of the Christian Reconstruction movement." Thus, not only has North consistently classified Reconstructionism as a movement, but throughout his writings, he has also identified himself and Rushdoony as its founders and Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law as its foundational text.
The official periodical of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation has
also never been shy about identifying Reconstructionism as a
movement (reference: The Chalcedon Report, April 1997) and the
Institute for First Amendment Studies identifies the organization
as "the origin and principal center of the Christian Reconstruction
movement." The Winter 1992 issue of Contra Mundum pointed
to Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics as "one of the
foundations of the Christian Reconstruction movement." DeMar
and Leithart, who, as mentioned above, attempted to deny that
Reconstructionism constitutes a movement at one point in Reduction
of Christianity, later contradicted themselves in the same book
by writing, "Anyone who reads published criticisms of the
Christian Reconstruction position should carefully examine these
criticisms to see whether the particular critic offers evidence
that he or she has read the basic literature of the movement
and has quoted from large sections of it, word for word"
(page 362). Finally, Andrew Sandlin, whom many believed would
be the intellectual heir of Rushdoony, identified Reconstructionism
as a movement as recently as his December 2002 essay entitled,
"Why the Movement Stops: Saying Good-Bye to Christian Reconstructionism."
Thus, Reconstructionism may legitimately be labeled a "movement,"
despite Bahnsen's attempt to deny the obvious. While it is true
that there was never a "chain of command," there has
nevertheless always been a "central authority" and
a "leadership" -- the writings of Rushdoony, North,
Bahnsen, et. al.
18. Maphet wrote, "The one thing that stands out in the approach many have taken in confronting the issue of theonomy is this: instead of going to primary sources... the critics have relied solely on secondary sources.... This seems to be endemic with the modern-day opponents of theonomy. With this approach the theonomist will never get a fair hearing" ("A Pastor's Response," page 298). In their book, The Reduction of Christianity, DeMar and Leithart agreed:
The amount of Christian Reconstruction literature is large and growing rapidly. It will continue to grow. Anyone who reads published criticisms of the Christian Reconstruction position should carefully examine these criticisms to see whether the particular critic offers evidence that he or she has read the basic literature of the movement and has quoted from large sections of it, word for word. Has the critic provided accurate footnotes to Reconstructionism's books, articles, and newsletters? If not, then the reader should be initially skeptical of the critic's accusations. Perhaps the critic has not really mastered the literature that is being criticized. Perhaps it is a case of bearing false witness. Critics are responsible for doing their homework carefully; they should not rush into print with a lot of wild and unsubstantiated accusations. Their books should offer evidence that they have done their homework (page 362).
I am confident that the reader will see that I have met the above challenge by both reading the "basic literature" and quoting "from large sections of it, word for word."
Copyright © 2004
Greg Loren Durand
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this exhibit
Outing Creeping Dominionism
A Response to an Evangelical’s Attack
By Katherine Yurica
Katherine Yurica digs into the
Dominionism
movement and exposes the true nature of the
doctrine millions of American Christians have
taken to heart. For the first time, she introduces
her readers to the man who is credited with
writing and inspiring the religious doctrines that
provided a new theological basis for regressive
economics and politics that would counter
traditional Christian progressive thought. One
man and his followers have turned not only
Christianity upside-down, but the future of America
is at stake. It was the insertion of “free enterprise
capitalism” onto the fabric of the scriptures that
enabled a small group of men to convert Christianity
into a tool that serves the purposes of regressive
conservatism. It is at once alarming and revealing
of the ingenuity and source of power behind the
spreading acceptance of dominionism. In fact, the
combining of conservative economics with edicts
that appear to be out of the mouth of God, may be
seen as one of the most brilliant and powerful
political concepts ever written. The man who
founded Dominionism has empowered the greedy
as no man has ever done: he’s made greed a virtue!
Directory on the Rise of Christian Dominionism
This article is copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to
advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2006 Yurica Report. All rights
reserved.