Posted on 11/14/2003 6:47:13 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it's hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death.
Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stoned--a rather abrupt way for the Clinton presidency to end.
Mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post are finally starting to take note of the influence Rushdoony and his followers have exerted for years in American conservative circles. But a second part of the story, of particular interest to readers of this magazine, is the degree to which Reconstructionists have gained prominence in libertarian causes, ranging from hard-money economics to the defense of home schooling. "Christian economist" Gary North, Rushdoony's son-in-law and star polemicist of the Reconstructionist movement, is widely cited as a spokesman for free markets, if not exactly free minds; he even served for a brief time on the House staff of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 1988, when Paul was a member of Congress in the '70s. For his part, Rushdoony has blandly described himself to the press as a critic of "statism" and even as a "Christian libertarian." Say what?
An outgrowth of Calvinism, modern
Reconstructionism can be traced to Rushdoony's 1973 magnum opus, Institutes of Biblical Law. (Many leading Reconstructionists emerged from conservative Presbyterianism, but as with so much of today's religious ferment, the movement cuts across denominational lines.) Not one to pursue a high public profile, Rushdoony has set up his Chalcedon Institute in off-the-beaten-path Vallecito, California, while North runs his Institute for Christian Economics out of Tyler, Texas.
As a "post-millennialist" school of thought, Reconstructionism holds that believers should work toward achieving God's kingdom on earth in the here and now, rather than expect its advent only after a second coming of Christ. Some are in a bit of a hurry about it, too. "World conquest," proclaims George Grant, in what by Reconstructionist standards is not an especially breathless formulation. "It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice... not just influence...not just equal time. It is dominion we are after."
Well, OK, it's easy to laugh. Yet grandiosity does sometimes get results, especially when combined with an all-out conviction that one is historically predestined to win (the Communist Party in the '30s comes to mind). Reconstructionism has a record of turning out hugely prolific writers, tireless organizers who stay at meetings until the last chair is folded up, and driven activists willing to undergo arrest (Reconstructionist Randall Terry founded Operation Rescue, the lawbreaking anti-abortion campaign) to make their point.
Politically, Reconstructionists have been active both in the GOP and in the splinter U.S. Taxpayers Party; but their greater influence, as they themselves would doubtless agree, has been felt in the sphere of ideas, in helping change the terms of discourse on the traditionalist right. One of their effects has been to allow everyone else to feel moderate. To wit: Almost any anti-abortion stance seems nuanced when compared with Gary North's advocacy of public execution not just for women who undergo abortions but for those who advised them to do so. And with the Rushdoony faction proposing the actual judicial murder of gays, fewer blink at the position of a Gary Bauer or a Janet Folger, who support laws exposing them to mere imprisonment.
Among other ideas Reconstructionists have helped popularize is that state neutrality on the subject of religion is meaningless. Any legal order is bound to "establish" one religious order or another, the argument runs, and the only question is whose. Put the question that way, and watch your polemical troubles disappear. If we're getting a religious establishment anyway, why not mine?
"The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.
So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.
The Recons are keenly aware of the P.R. difficulties such views pose as they become more widely known. Brian Abshire writes in the January Chalcedon Report, the official magazine of Rushdoony's institute, that the "judicial sanctions" are "at the root" of the antipathy most evangelicals still show towards Reconstruction. Indeed, as the press spotlight has intensified, prominent religious conservatives have edged away. For a while the Coalition on Revival (COR), an umbrella group set up to "bring America back to its biblical foundations" by identifying common ground among Christian right activists of differing theological backgrounds, allowed leading Reconstructionists to chum around with such figures as televangelist D. James Kennedy (whose Coral Ridge Ministries also employed militant Reconstructionist George Grant as a vice president) and National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist Robert Dugan.
In recent years, however, the COR has lost many of its best-known members; former Virginia lieutenant governor candidate Mike Farris, for example, told The Washington Post that he left the group because "it started heading to a theocracy...and I don't believe in a theocracy." John Whitehead, a Rushdoony protégé who, with Chalcedon assistance, launched the Rutherford Institute to pursue religious litigation, has moved with some vigor to disavow his old mentor's views.
Prominent California philanthropist Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who has given Rushdoony's operations more than $700,000 over the years, may also be loosening his ties. According to the June 30, 1996, Orange County Register, Ahmanson has departed the Chalcedon board and says he "does not embrace all of Rushdoony's teachings." An heir of the Home Savings bank fortune, Ahmanson has also been an important donor to numerous
other groups, including the Claremont Institute, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and--just to show how complicated life gets--the Reason Foundation, the publisher of this magazine (for projects not associated with its publication).
The continuing, extensive Reconstructionist presence in fields like the home schooling movement poses for libertarians an obvious question: How serious do differences have to become before it becomes inappropriate to overlook them in an otherwise good cause? The printed program of last year's Separation of School & State Alliance convention constituted an odd ideological mix in which certified good guys such as Sheldon Richman, Jim Bovard, and Don Boudreaux alternated with Chalcedon stalwarts like Samuel Blumenfeld, Howard Phillips, and Rushdoony himself.
Lest such relations become unduly frictionless, here's a clip-and-save sampler of Reconstructionist quotes to keep on hand:
On the link between reason and liberty: "Reason itself is not an objective `given' but is itself a divinely created instrument employed by the unregenerate to further their attack on God." The "appeal to reason as final arbiter" must be rejected; "if man is permitted autonomy in one sphere he will soon claim autonomy in all spheres....We therefore deny every expression of human autonomy--liberal, conservative or libertarian." Thus affirmed Andrew Sandlin, in the January Chalcedon Report.
Intellectual liberty (other religions department): Hindus, Muslims, and the like would still be free to practice their rites "in the privacy of your own home....But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state....every civil order protects its foundations," wrote the late Recon theologian Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen added that the interdiction applies to "someone [who] comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)."
Intellectual liberty (where secularists fit in department): "All sides of the humanistic spectrum are now, in principle, demonic; communists and conservatives, anarchists and socialists, fascists and republicans," explains Rushdoony. "When someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate...those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed," wrote Bahnsen.
On ultimate goals: "So let us be blunt about it," says Gary North. "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
Contributing Editor Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Excuse Factory: How Employment Law Is Paralyzing the American Workplace (The Free Press).
Visit Walter Olson's official Web site
Here is a long snippet:
Other noted Reconstructionists include Greg Bahnson, David Barton of WallBuilders, Inc., David Chilton, Gary DeMar of American Vision and Worldview Magazine; Ted DeMoss of Christian Business Men's Committee; Kenneth Gentry, Jay Grimstead of Coalition on Revival; James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; Tim LaHaye of American Coalition for Traditional Values; Mrs. Connie Marshner of Free Congress Foundation; Rev. Joseph Morecraft; Gary North of Institute for Christian Economics; Mark Siljander of Global Strategies, Inc.; Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and Rev. Donald Wildmon of American Family Association. Dr. Kennedy, Rev. LaHaye, Mrs. Marshner, Mr. North, R.J. Rushdoony, and Rev. Wildmon are all members of the Council For National Policy.
"Whether it is acknowledged or not, Reconstructionism has profoundly influenced the Christian Right. Perhaps its most important role within the Christian Right can be traced to the formation in 1982 of the Coalition on Revival (COR)…Founded and headed by Dr. Jay Grimstead, COR has sought in this way to create a transdenominational theology…The COR leadership has significantly overlapped with the Christian Right, and has included: John Whitehead, Don Wildmon…Tim LaHaye and D. James Kennedy, Randall Terry…Steven Hotze, Rev. Glen Cole…Michael Farris…Robert Dugan…Bill Dannemeyer…Mark Siljander…R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Joseph Moorecraft, David Chilton, Gary DeMar… and Rus Walton."
CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM AND HOMESCHOOLING
It is difficult for secular homeschoolers to understand the apparent double standard when Christian homeschoolers are discriminatory against them at the local support group level, while at the same time, courting their efforts when it comes to state or national political causes. Understanding Reconstructionist Theology and Theocracy is important because it reflects understanding on the division in the homeschooling community between secular and religious members, and the theocratic motivations of politically manipulating the community.
Gary North declared, "All long-term social change comes from the successful efforts of one or another struggling organizations to capture the minds of a hard core of future leaders."
Reconstructionists believe that Christian schools and the homeschooling movement are the key to capturing those minds. Joseph Moorecraft said in 1987, that the Reconstruction movement was made up of a small number but expected a massive acceleration in 25 to 30 years 'when those kids that are now in Christian schools have graduated and taken their places in American society, and moved into places of influence and power.'
It's interesting to note that Reconstructionist Jay Rogers wrote, " A little known fact: R. J Rushdoony, aside from being the founder of Christian Reconstruction, is also the founder of the modern home schooling movement. Most people who deride the Reconstructionist movement for being 'too political' don't realize that." This declaration completely ignores the work of secular writers, such as John Holt, who promoted homeschooling as an alternative in the 1970's and '80's.
When it comes to politics, the principles are simple: "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and Holy Communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."
"Gary North claims that 'the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.' North describes the 'three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement' as 'the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system.' What this means is that hundreds of thousands of Pentecostals and charismatic Christians, as well as many fundamentalist Baptists, have moved out of the apolitical camp. Many have thrown themselves into political work - not merely as voters, but as ideologically driven activists, bringing a reconstructed 'Biblical world view' to bear on their area of activism."
The Home School Legal Defense Association/Foundation has many links to Reconstructionism. In his well-researched 1995 book, Home Schooling: The Right Choice, HSLDA attorney Christopher Klicka frequently quotes Reconstructionst writers, notably Rushdoony and Barton. In addition to including Rushdoony's "The Difference Between Christian Education and Humanistic Education", the book's forward was written by D. James Kennedy and many of the ideals expressed seem Reconstructionist, however, he does not state specifically that he is a Reconstructionist.
OMG! If I wasn't already afraid of Ashcroft, this would certaily do the trick.
Hey, you gotta admit, he's fiscally responsible. We wouldn't even have to pay the salary of an executioner. This would take a load off, if not completely eliminate, the prison system. And community stonings are democratic. I mean, a kid's first stoning would be sort of like a kid's first haircut--give him a little rock (with camcorder rolling) and watch him chunk it at the condemned with all his might, while the parents stand by, smiling indulgently. "That kid's really got an arm on him!" someone might say. "He'll be getting head shots with a fist-sized rock in no time at all!"
Terry once said that the "old him" wouldn't be very sympathetic to his decision to leave his wife "because the music died", the fact that the "old him" would have advocated stoning the new him.
However, as for Grant and Kennedy, the author does them a grave injustice. I've read three of his books and Grant does not advocate anything of the sort. Rather, he sites Francis Schaeffer as one his primary sources of inspiration.
Neither does Kennedy call for the radical reconstruction proposed by Rushmooney. In fact, in his book, "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born", he admits the crusades, anti-semitism, and the Salem witch trials to be sins.
Of course, the response may be that that Grant and Kennedy did not write what they wrote in books because they feared their views being discovered and their plot revealed. Of course, one could fairly ask why Gary North has taken no such precautions with own work, neither has Rushmooney.
To add Judge Moore into this is ridiculous as the only connection is a tenuous link between Moore and Kennedy whom they have no real proof advocates such an extreme ideology.
I'd add that Alan Keyes also supports Judge Moore and that he would not if he thought Moore was part of an ultra-Calvanist conspiracy to impose his religion on the United States. Though, I'm sure the Evil Emperor, Free Republic's liberal troll extrordinaire, would suggest otherwise, he also inserted Keyes into conversation between Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
In 1996, in a Speech to the New Hampshire Republican Party, Keyes said,
I have been asked in the last few days, and I'm sure it's been on the minds of some folks here, "Now, why doesn't that Keyes fellow just withdraw, and let Pat Buchanan move along?" I'll tell you why not. I'll tell you exactly why not. Because I believe that we cannot present our moral conservative convictions under a guise that divides this country. I believe that we have to present it with the serious, thoughtful truth. And when I stand up to say that abortion is wrong, my heart, my Christian heart knows that it's wrong 'cause God says that it's wrong, because he has declared, "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee." I know that we begin not as a moment in the womb, but as a moment in the mind of God.
But though I feel it in my Christian heart, when I speak it from my lips as an American politician, I shall speak it with the words of American principle that all Americans--regardless of their faith, regardless of their background--must heed, must respect, or else we lose it all. And I think that that's the only way that we can hope to call this nation back to moral principle.
We cannot do it in a way that suggests that we aim for religious domination, because none of us do.
Finally,The author of the article says that even fundamentalists are alarmed by North and Rushmooney's rhetoric. The author is obviously unaware that North does not consider himself a fundamentalist, in fact their a source of mockery in his article.
I thank God that you do not rule our country. You would have to begin by repealing the first amendment. Religious people can only be free in your America if they shut up and sit in their pews.
And how do you establish a cult? Jack Chick insists that the Roman Catholic church's top goal is world domination. Are the Catholics a cult because he says so?
Are Calvanists of conscience cults? This author has tied together a rather flimsy case accusing pro-life Calvanist post-millenialists of wanting to kill 80% of Americans? Are they cults?
Is every pro-life church a cult? Every church that stands against the culture of death, subject to arrest, disbandment, and imprisonment.
Shall a Christian who supports restoring America's constitutional heritage of respect for God in the public sphere now a terrorist?
I'm not scared by Gary North and his ilk. Most Christians would never support their radical agenda, it is rather you who scare me.
For I see in your words a future Stalnist America with concentration camps for "cultists".
Now, as I said previously, on this thread and many others...go get ALL of the facts BEFORE you run on at the mouth. Elsewise, you're the one who looks the fool. ;^)
It appears to be, but I highly doubt Dr. Kennedy does. The rest of them, I don't know, but I doubt it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.