No, absolutely not. This is the domain of the church. 3. Would theological "orthodoxy" be an area enforced by civil government?
Egads. Living by the word of God. What an affront to our humanism.
Some have objected that this would lead to the mass stoning of homosexuals and incorrigible children. Reconstructionists must emphasize that what we want is not strong rule by the federal government in determining these matters, but the freedom for individual Christians, families, churches, and local community governments to rule without interference from a centralized state. We believe that Reconstruction is from the ground up. Mass regeneration must precede Reconstruction. As more are converted to Christ, more individuals become self-governing. This leads to stronger families and churches and the ability of local communities to govern their own affairs. Thus the total numbers of cases of sodomy or of uncontrollable children would grow less and less. The state would rule in fewer and fewer cases.Nice way of sidestepping the question. The answer to "wouldn't this lead to mass stonings of homosexuals & incorrigible children?" is, "Um, er, well, there would be less and less of that as time went on."
Halleluiah!
Considering it is demonstrably not the Word of God one could safely say that resort to this form of law would be living by the word of men. And the word of those men is antithetical to liberty and justice.
This still sounds like Sharia, where the church IS the civil government.
That just means you won't force people to be in one denomination.
But Old Testament law would apply to ALL.