[…]
Recent Theocratic Tendencies: Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism
As the 20th century progressed, American culture descended into the depravity of the 1960s, and so a new vision of a Christian America was awakened by concerned Christian citizens. The religious right emerged in the 1970s and gained tremendous political clout in the 1980s. It sought to represent and to enforce the will of a “moral majority.” And the activists of the religious right have remained ever since as forceful advocates for a type of theocratic government.
It is urgently necessary to examine and critique the doctrines that underlie the political philosophy of the religious right—Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism.
First, Christian Reconstructionism, as proposed and defined by R.J. Rushdoony, in his 1973 work Institutes of Biblical Law, calls for implementing God’s moral laws through government, forcing Christian virtues upon the broader society. While Rushdoony does not propose the literal institutional merging of the church and the state, he does favor using biblical moral law as the foundation for society’s laws—which amounts to an effective merging.
In other words, according to Rushdoony, “if it’s immoral, then it should be illegal.”
Hence, Rushdoony called for the death penalty for the openly gay and also for those who blaspheme.[1] (It goes without saying that Rushdoony would be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from John Locke and Thomas Jefferson who taught that the purpose of government was only to protect life, liberty and property. To defend the victim by punishing aggressors.)
Certainly most of Rushdoony’s successors who are referred to as the “religious right” would not openly or entirely agree with Rushdoony’s extremism. But what he provides us is a logically consistent theocratic model…the logical conclusion of the political philosophy of the religious right.
Most members of the religious right talk about how the Ten Commandments should be the foundation for our laws, but they tend to backtrack when asked if we Christians should throw people into prison for Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, misusing God’s name, and dishonoring one’s parents.[2] Few members of the religious right would go that far, though they do struggle to find a logical line to draw where their moralizing legislation should begin and end.
Rushdoony and his followers, however, are logically consistent, and they unashamedly go all the way.
Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism is only logical. If one holds to the dictum that “if it’s immoral then it should be illegal,” which the rhetoric of the religious right suggests, then we Christians ought to acquire the reigns of power and outlaw all outward sin…including idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, misusing the Lord’s name, and dishonoring parents among other sins.
So, to a Christian Reconstructionist, Christians ought to collectively pick up the sword and use coercion to compel non-believers to live an outwardly Christian life. They call such legislation, “moral values.” However, when behavior is compelled through the threat of force, no moral choice is even possible. And as such, Christian Reconstructionists actually hamper the ability for individuals to be genuinely inwardly moral. (One has to ask, is God even pleased at all by outwardly moral acts that are exercised only because of fear of punishment?)
A second theological teaching that has grown to prominence in recent decades and has also influenced the religious right in America is called Dominionism.
Dominionsts believe in a Christian “right to rule.” In Genesis 1:28, God gives Adam dominion over the animals and the earth. Dominionists construe this passage to mean that Christians should have dominion even over other human beings. Dominionists find in this passage the mandate for Christians to acquire government power and implement God’s moral statutes by force.
George Grand, former executive director of D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries (one of the most prominent religious right organizations) summed up this dominion theology succinctly when he wrote:
Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ—to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.Certainly, every Christian ought to agree that the Gospel is cosmic in scope and we should reclaim the world for Christ. Everything is spiritual, right? Every element of human society is fallen and is in need of redemption.[4] Even our broken social spheres had a unique design that God intended, and we ought to try to repair and to restore them.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest.
That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.[3]
There is a very big difference, however, between human governments and other social spheres (the economy, the arts, education, the family, etc.). Remember, government operates according to force. It is a power-over system, and it cannot cease to be a power-over system. And government only exists to punish wrong-doers and to enforce justice, law, and order in a fallen society. Government would not even need to exist if evil did not need to be restrained. Government was not part of God’s original design for creation. It cannot be redeemed; it can only be made relatively good. So, if our dominion mandate calls us to restore and redeem the social spheres of our world to God’s original design for them, this mandate does not apply to the sphere of government.[5]
The Kingdom Way versus the Dominion Way
Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionistm are not merely flawed, yet acceptable, Christian theological concepts. These ideas are worse than that, because these doctrines fully reverse what it means to be a Christian. We go from serving to “dominating” (or “having dominion”). We go from inviting to forcing. We go from loving to punishing.
No doubt, the proponents of these ideas are well-intentioned brothers and sisters in Christ. They desire to see society more Christian and more moral. However, they make a crucial error that ends up making their philosophy un-Christian. They neglect the Christian means of bringing redemption to the world. Jesus explicitly taught us how to live in a way that extends his Kingdom. In fact, to Jesus, the proper means of redeeming and restoring this world (love, servitude, etc.) functions as the means and the end! Servant-like love is the Kingdom Way. It is the goal and it is the means for achieving that goal. Christians cannot bring the Way of Jesus to the world in a way that Jesus did not approve and still call ourselves Christians. […]
The Christian Left also Misses the Point
Before we turn to an analysis of Christian militarism and Christian Zionism, both of which are also recent civic sins of the “right wing” of America’s political spectrum, it is important to point out that the growing “religious left” operates with the same theological misunderstandings as does the religious right.
Many have been rightly appalled at the civic conduct of Christian conservatives, and have figured that the appropriate alternative would be to emphasize the “left hand of God,” the compassionate side.
However, the only difference between the religious right and the religious left is that the left simply chooses different Christian principles to try to implement by force. A passion for economic generosity drives well-meaning Christians to use government power to impose a Christian view of giving upon non-believers and believers alike.
In reality, infringing upon peoples’ property rights is not compassionate at all.
Redistribution of wealth involves theft of property. In order for government to give to some citizen or group of citizens or corporation or foreign government, it has to take property from productive citizens. Government does not create or produce; it seizes. Government does not have wealth to give; all of the wealth it has, it takes by force.
In other words, socialism and socialistic policies involve the unjust seizure, or theft, of the property of some for the purpose of distributing it to those whom the state has deemed more deserving of the earned property of those citizens.
The logic behind the religious left is no different than that which drives the religious right. They both seek to implement Kingdom-of-God realities through the coercive force of government, and in doing so, they both sell out the Kingdom methods of redemption that Jesus requires of us: loving persuasion, not the force of arms.
Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, as well as many circles of hip, young evangelicals, are unfortunately reacting to the outrages of the religious right by adding fuel to a religious left. The media is abuzz with talk about the “future of the evangelical vote” along these lines. While such groups should be applauded for speaking out against unjust wars and the torture of human beings, ultimately, they have the same misplaced trust in government power to extend the Kingdom of God as the religious right.
A recent news article typifies the reporting on this subject. The article quotes a woman who has changed parties from the militarist Republican Party to the “kind and compassionate” Democratic Party. She will be voting for Obama because she wants to “find ways we can bring the values of the kingdom of God into the experience of humanity.”[6]
Through government force? Violent coercion?
Apparently so.
The article reports that “Christians are rethinking their politics, urged along by a new generation of leadership and intensified concern about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS, and poverty.”
No doubt, Christians ought to be concerned about genocide, AIDS, and poverty, just as we should be concerned about sexual perversion, gambling, and the other more personal sins.[7] But is the sword really the solution? Is it even permissible for the Christian to use the sword of government to implement any of the things close to the heart of God? Isn’t seizing peoples’ property at gun-point (called “taxation”) in order to spend it in ways that are more Christ-like a tad contradictory? How Christ-like is it, really, to use force in this way?
Forceful government intervention in the economy to supposedly alleviate poverty and stop “climate change” are no more justified for the Christian to engage in than the religious right’s attempt to moralize society through force.
One interesting thought is that both sides, in order to be consistent, should seek to use the coercion of government to implement all Christian virtues at gunpoint.
Think about it. Take either of the two to its logical conclusion. Both would agree with this statement to a certain degree: “It is the responsibility of Christians to use government to advance the things that God cares about.” Well, God cares about personal morality (the pet issues of the religious right) as well as economic generosity (the driving issue behind the religious left). These are both important to God, so how can a logical thinker choose one, but not the other?[8] Both the religious right and the religious left are inconsistent. If you believe Christians should use government to implement biblical truth, then you would have to be a Christian authoritarian.
As the reader can guess, I suggest that Christians lay down the sword in both spheres of Christian morality (personal and economic) and recognize the sacredness of the human conscience and the importance of staying true to the means of extending the Kingdom Way, not just obsessively focusing on the end, while remaining oblivious to the violent nature of those political means.
For now, let the reader not forget the importance of keeping the Kingdom holy from the intoxicating realm of power, no matter where one leans on the left-right political spectrum given to us by the world.
[1] “Invitation to a Stoning,” Reason Magazine, Nov. 1998, http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html
[2] Unfortunately, more leaders within the religious right might agree with elements of Rushdoony’s version of a power-over system than we’d like to think. Consider this passage from William Martin’s 1996 book, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. (New York: Broadway Books).
“It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' In addition…Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and The 700 Club several times. And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality … in all points of history … and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike… It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership—James Kennedy is one of them—who don't go all the way with the [theocracy] thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'
[3] George Grant, The Changing of the Guard, (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), pp 50-51
[4] See Chapter Two
[5] More on this later
[6] “Obama Courting Evangelicals Once Loyal to Bush,” MSNBC.com, June 30, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25468930
[7] Though this author doubts the veracity of the theory that climate change is man-made.
[8] It should be noted that our goal here isn’t to say that Christians should not or can not favor conservative or liberal political candidates and policies. Perhaps, for one reason or another, their policies represent decent political ideas. However, advocating the use of aggression cannot be rightly called a Christian activity. In order to be a Christian activity, the action must look and act like Christ. Christ laid down the sword. The religious right and the religious left make a mistake when they label their coercive actions as Christian.
I very much enjoyed reading this. Thanks and I look forward to reading the rest of the book.
ReplyDelete