RIGHT or WRONG? Christian Reconstructionism

Posted: 1/05/07

RIGHT or WRONG?
Christian Reconstructionism

I recently heard about “Christian Reconstructionism.” Some facets of it seem to run counter to historic Baptist distinctives. Is that a valid conclusion?

Evaluation of Christian Reconstructionism is difficult for two reasons. First, there is diversity and even division in the movement on key issues. Second, the literary output of the movement is so enormous there is always the possibility of having missed some nuance. Certainly Rousas Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law and the works of Gary North are important resources for understanding this movement. Many features of Christian Reconstructionism are faithful renderings of Christian doctrine and as such will be favorably viewed by most Baptists. These would include the authority of Scripture, the necessity of salvation by grace through faith and the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to transform our world by the work of the Holy Spirit. At least one major aspect of Christian Reconstructionism will create distance between it and important Baptist distinctives, however—its understanding of the relationship between biblical law and civil government. Christian Reconstructionists insist they do not seek Christianization of the political order by a minority of believers so as to impose a biblical ethic “on a pervasively unbelieving populace.”

“The Bible does not allow the imposition of top-down bureaucratic tyranny in the name of Christ,” North insists. Personal regeneration and the work of the Spirit, Reconstructionists say, are what enable sinful humanity to live in keeping with the law of God. But qualifying words like “minority” and “pervasively” indicate Reconstructionists are up to something. “Let’s get this straight; Christian Reconstructionism depends on majority rule,” North says. “… It depends on overwhelming acceptance of the biblical covenant, perhaps as high as the 80 percent range of adult acceptance.” Reconstructionists believe that with such an overwhelming majority of Christians populating a nation, “God’s laws should (then) be passed and enforced according to the rules of the democratic process.” In this way, Christians can invoke an important biblical principle—“that civil government is a legitimate means of evangelism.”

So, in spite of what Reconstructionists say about the need for personal regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit, that really is only the case for about 80 percent of a given population. Evidently, fulfillment of the law of God in the lives of the remaining 20 percent can be achieved through the coercive power of the state; and Reconstructionists do mean coercive. One of the main features of biblical law they seem eager to promote is a widening application of the death penalty. They do not flinch one bit when the Old Testament applies the death penalty not simply to murder, but to homosexuality, violation of the Sabbath, the rebellious son, adultery, sorcery and any number of violations of law and order. One must expect their disappointment when in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul does not invoke Leviticus 20:11 and call for the death of the offending church member. When Deuteronomy 13:1-11 insists that any within the covenant community who advocate apostasy shall be put to death, we perhaps get the full sense of what Reconstructionists mean when they speak of “evangelism through law.” Baptists have seen this sort of “evangelism” before. The very origins of Baptist history are a rejection of this strategy. Does Christian Reconstructionism run counter to historic Baptist distinctives? Indeed it does.

Jeph Holloway, professor of religion

East Texas Baptist University

Marshall

Right or Wrong? is sponsored by the T.B. Maston Chair of Christian Ethics at Hardin-Simmons University’s Logsdon School of Theology. Send your questions about how to apply your faith to btillman@hsutx.edu.