Replies

I'm always willing to learn, and can change my worldview

All you are willing to do is spew hate. That is CRAP that you are willing to 'learn' or 'change'. Anyone that knows your posts here at FR know better than that. You are completely narrow minded and one hateful being.

I've had my say. I have better things to do than hang out here with you.

Again - I ask you to refute it. I'm always willing to learn, and can change my worldview given the right information.

What the article says is not always what is observed in real life among those who claim to be Christian Reconstructionists. Perhaps that's the problem.

The article is hogwash on many levels and I'll not waste my time on a point by point but I'll give you just one example...

On the author's list of commited reconstructionists is Tim LaHaye.

You might have heard of LaHaye...he's the creator of the Left Behind series of books which express his theological views in fictional format.

Those views involve a pre-millenial rapture which is the antithesis of reconstructionalism.

Given that the author could overlook a phenomena as huge as the "Left Behind" books I am forced to conclude the s/he is to inept to have any clue what the rest of those folks believe.

Yes, Chalcedon is reconstructionist, perhaps many others there as well. But given the inclusion of LaHaye, there is no way way to trust the article on anyone else.

BTW: Speaking as a homeschooler who has not the tinyest delusion of reconstructionalism in his theology, I still think that America can return to the Christian WORLDVIEW held by her founders (I do NOT think she actually WILL, but I think it is possible) but that in no way means that I advocate the enforcing of Christian tenents by force of law - such would be anethema to me.
Likewise, I do not have the slighest temptation to install an Old Testament theocracy, but I can easily affirm that God's standards do not change. There is no contridiction in that.

So selectivly quoting Ferris (and probably others) carries practically no weight.

So, at the end of the day, the article undermines its own credibility and is thus - useless.