The “new kid on the block,” Christian Reconstruction, can be described as “Calvinism on Steroids.” Imagine a faith big enough for all of life, not just the “religious” sandbox. Imagine a God who so loves the world, His battered creation, that He recruits, redeems, and empowers a generation of caretakers. Lively saints who reshape every area of life towards God’s design, each in his or her own sphere.
Some of the emphasis of Christian Reconstruction include:
Reformed soteriology. We are saved by grace through faith, and for God’s purposes. (see Eph. 2:10)
Postmillennial eschatology. God has no plans to take a dive, throw in the towel, and let the other team have an uncontested turn at bat. Jesus is Lord, and that is reason for nations to rejoice!
Theonomy. God’s Word applies to the vast universe around us as well as the half-vast “universe” inside us. Every layer, form, and strata of government is a theocracy. The only question is, which God is honored in each? And should we have different deities for different realms of life? Anglo-American Common Law, for example, is the Law of God applied to local circumstances, rinse and repeat for 1,500 years. The focal point of the application of Common Law is your friendly neighborhood theocracy, where 12 “good men and true” take an oath to the God of the Bible, with a hand on the Bible, to enforce the law of God found in the Bible.
Sphere sovereignty. Family, church, and civil government each have their own knitting to tend to. When roles become blurred, bad things happen. For example, it is a widely accepted and socially endorsed sin for Christian parents to render unto Caesar that which is God’s, the children entrusted to their care. All education is religious education. The only question is, which religion? And which god? should govern the way we raise our children? It’s no coincidence that the ArmEnian Calvinist who connected a lot of the dots is also considered to be the godfather of home schooling.
The problem, of course, with Rushdoony’s bizzaro ideas is that it is ultimately a total rejection of what Jesus says about the kingdom of God.
From a Lutheran perspective, it’s just Theology of Glory on steroids. It’s “We’re going to save the world by ruling everything with an iron fist”–that’s not how that works. The Christian lives by the cross, not glory. The Christian stands at the bottom rung of the ladder, not the top.
Uh, ok. There’s certainly a strong impulse in Reformed thought to proclaim Christ’s lordship over all of life, as Abraham Kuyper famously noted: no square inch of creation falls outside His sovereignty.
However, a few important historical and theological distinctions are worth keeping in mind. Reformed Theology vs. Theonomy: While Reconstructionists frame Theonomy as “Calvinism on steroids,” most classical Reformed traditions (and the Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4) actually reject it. Historic Reformed theology holds that Israel’s civil/judicial laws expired with the ancient Israelite state, leaving behind only general principles of equity, rather than a mandate for modern civil governments to enforce Mosaic civil penalties.
Anglo-American Common Law was undoubtedly influenced by a Christian moral framework, but it evolved through customary law, judicial precedent (stare decisis), Anglo-Saxon traditions, and legal equity. Not as a direct application of the Mosaic civil code. Kuyper’s concept of Sphere Sovereignty is meant to prevent any single institution from overstepping its bounds. The challenge with Reconstructionism is that by seeking to codify Old Testament civil sanctions into modern law, it often collapses the distinction between the Church’s spiritual authority and the State’s role in maintaining general order via natural law and common grace.
(Also, a small historical chuckle? I assume you meant Rousas Rushdoony was of Armenian heritage? Since calling a staunch Calvinist an Arminian might be the fastest way to start a theological duel!)
It’s a fascinating corner of 20th-century American theological history, but there’s a reason mainstream Reformed bodies have kept a firm boundary between traditional covenant theology and Rushdoony’s civil project. Some things to think about.