To Understand the Public Relations Disaster that’s Engulfed Christianity Today Magazine, Gordon College & Wheaton College, You Need to Understand the Reconstructionist Movement

If the history of Christianity proves one thing, it’s that you can make the Bible “say” anything. That way God takes the blame for your stupidity, say burning witches or discriminating against gays. Speaking of stupidity, consider the public relations disaster that’s engulfed Christianity Today magazine’s editor, Gordon College’s president and Wheaton College post-Hobby Lobby.

When you hear words like “Without a robust religious exemption [from laws protecting civil rights for gays] . . . this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom,” or “We do not want to provide women with insurance coverage for contraceptives,” these twenty-first-century Bronze Age “biblical” expressions of theocratic hardheartedness can be traced back to some of my old friends: the Reconstructionists.

In its modern American incarnation, which hardened into a twentieth-century movement in the 1960s and became widespread in the 1970s, Reconstructionism was propagated by people I knew and worked with closely when I, too, was  a Jesus Predator doing culture war battle for “truth.”

I was an insider before I fled. Hear me out.

So…

When you try and figure out where something like…

•  the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling came from,
• or why Wheaton College was permitted to deny women access to contraceptives in the name of “religious freedom”
• or why the editor of Christianity Today magazine teamed up with the president of Gordon College to write a letter to President Obama demanding to be exempted from civil rights laws that protect gay men and women from employment discrimination…

then look no farther than the Reconstructionists.

Most Americans have never heard of the Reconstructionists. But they have felt their impact through the Reconstructionists’ profound (if indirect) influence over the wider (and vast) Evangelical community.

In turn, the Evangelicals shaped the politics of a secular culture that barely understood the Religious Right, let alone the forces within that movement that gave it its nasty, hate-filled frankly moronic edge.

The Americans inhabiting the wider (and more secular) culture just saw the results of Reconstructionism when the Hobby Lobby/Wheaton rulings were handed down and/or when they woke up to read that Gordon and Christianity Today wanted permission to legally discriminate against gays.

So where did the backward rubes who want government to allow them to role back civil rights and women’s rights come from?

Read on… I’ll explain. 

The first thing you need to understand is that Wheaton, Gordon and Christianity Today all share something: They feel they are victims of modernity. “Liberals”, “Humanists” et al are out to get them.

If you feel victimized by modernity, the Reconstructionists had the answer in their version of biblical interpretation. People who were different than you were the “Other” and evil. they needed to be stopped not by mere persuasion but BY LAW!

Reconstructionists wanted to replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with their interpretation of the Bible. They still do.

What the editor of Christianity Today and the president of Gordon did, with their dumb shoot-yourself-in-the-foot letter to the President, was essentially demand a Reconstructionists’ wet dream: Roll back of the Bill of Rights.

What Wheaton did was demand — and get!– a roll back of women’s rights to the 19th Century.

Most Evangelicals are positively moderate by comparison to the Reconstructionists. But the Reconstructionists have been like a drop of radicalizing flavoring added to a bottle of water: They’ve subtly changed the water’s flavor. That “flavor” is one of bitter intolerance dressed up as a grievance against the secular culture that is out to get poor old little evangelicals…

So, anyone who wants to understand American politics, not to mention North American religion, had better get acquainted with the Reconstructionists.

In other words, don’t skim this article damn well read it– footnotes included! 

The Reconstructionist worldview is ultra-Calvinist and as mean as the so-called New Calvinism on its worst day. John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris are but minor footnotes to the men who inspired them to their hatred and paranoia against the world. Picture a spittle-flecked Driscoll screaming and you’ve met the Reconstructionists’ true sons. 

All Calvinisms (“NEW” or otherwise),^[1] has its origins in ancient Israel/Palestine, when vengeful and ignorant tribal lore was written down by frightened men (the nastier authors of the Bible) trying to defend their prerogatives to bully women, murder rival tribes, and steal land.

The leaders of the Reconstructionist movement or the original new Calvinism before it got named, included the late Rousas Rushdoony (Calvinist theologian, father of modern-era Christian Reconstructionism, patron saint to gold-hoarding haters of the Federal Reserve, and creator of the modern Evangelical homeschool movement), his son-in-law Gary North (an economist and publisher), and David Chilton (Calvinist pastor and author).

Reconstructionism, also called Theonomism,^[2] seeks to reconstruct “our fallen society.” Its worldview is best represented by the publications of the Chalcedon Foundation, (which has been classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center as should by the way both Gordon and Christianity Today now).

According to the Chalcedon Foundation Web site, the mission of the movement is to apply “the whole Word of God” to all aspects of human life: “It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own.”^[3] 

The Hobby Lobby owners, Christianity Today, Wheaton and Gordon couldn’t have put it better! 

It’s no coincidence that the rise of the Islamic Brotherhoods in Egypt and Syria and the rise of North American Reconstructionism took place in a twentieth-century time frame—as science, and modern permissiveness collided with a frightened conservatism rooted in religion.

The writings of people such as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and those of Rushdoony are virtually interchangeable when it comes to their goals of restoring God to His “rightful place” as He presides over law and morals. This was the view implicit in the letter to Obama signed by the editor of Christianity Today as well.

Hassan al-Banna and Christianity Today‘s editor speak as one. Their message: Put God in Charge of the LAW! Or at least LET US HAVE OUR OWN LAWS.

In other words Gordon, Wheaton and Christianity Today, not to mention Hobby Lobby wanted their own version of Shariah Law. And with the help of the Far Right Reconstructionist Supreme Court, they got some of what they wanted. 

According to al-Banna, Islam enjoins man to strive for a segregation of male and female students, a separate curriculum for girls, a prohibition on dancing, and a campaign against “ostentation in dress and loose behavior.” Every one of these demands could have been part of the pledge signed by all Wheaton College and Gordon College faculty within my lifetime.

Islamic governments must eventually be unified in a theocratic worldwide Caliphate. Or as the late Reconstructionist/Calvinist theologian David Chilton (sounding startlingly al-Banna-and Gordon-president like) “explained”:

The Great Commission to the Church does not end with simply witnessing to the nations. The kingdoms of the world are to become the kingdoms of Christ.This means that every aspect of life throughout the world is to be brought under the lordship of Jesus Christ: families, individuals, business, science, agriculture, the arts, law, education, economics, psychology, philosophy, and every other sphere of human activity. Nothing may be left out. Christ “must reign, until He has put all enemies under His feet” (1st Cor. 15:25).Our goal is a Christian world, made up of explicitly Christian nations. How could a Christian desire anything else?That is the only choice: pagan law or Christian law. God specifically forbids “pluralism.” God is not the least bit interested in sharing world dominion with Satan.^[4]

It was my old friend, the short, stocky, bearded, gnomelike, Armenian American Rousas Rushdoony who in 1973 most thoroughly laid out the Far Right/Religious Right/Gordon/Wheaton/Christianity Today/ updated “Shariah” agenda in his book The Institutes of Biblical Law.

Rushdoony changed the definition of salvation from the accepted Evangelical idea that it applies to individuals to the claim that salvation is really about politics. With this redefinition, Rushdoony contradicted the usual reading of Jesus’ words by most Christians to mean that Jesus had not come to this earth to be a political leader: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

As I make clear in my new book, WHY I AM AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD: How to give love, create beauty and find peace most theologians argue that the New Testament Law of Love “corrects” or “completes” the Old Testament Law of Retribution. Not the Reconstructionists.

Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North has argued that in the Sermon on the Mount the commandments about love are only “recommendations for the ethical conduct of a captive people.”^[5] North says that Jesus’ commands that we agree with adversaries quickly, go the second mile, turn the other cheek, and so forth are no more than instructions on how to survive captivity while being ruled by unbelieving sovereigns as the Jews were ruled by the Romans in Jesus’ day. Once Christians are in charge, according to North, rather than turning the other cheek to our enemy, we “should either bust him in the chops or haul him before the magistrate, and possibly both.” North adds, “It is only in a period of civil impotence that Christians are under the rule to ‘resist not evil.’”^[6]

How far would the Reconstructionists go?

North, writes, “The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offence to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Exodus. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Leviticus. 24:16).”^[7]

The bizarre scope of Reconstructionists’ ambition—”insanity,” as my father often called it—is clear in the table of contents of Rushdoony’s 890-page The Institutes of Biblical Law,^[10] wherein he commented on the world, its history, and its future in the light of what the Bible “says.” Rushdoony provided Reconstruction theory for law, politics, jurisprudence, and social morality, you name it, just about everything except a Reformed Calvinist recipe for chicken soup!

The message of Rushdoony’s work is best summed up in one of his innumerable Chalcedon Foundation position papers, “The Increase of His Government and Peace.”^[11] He writes, “The ultimate and absolute government of all things shall belong to Christ.” In his book Thy Kingdom Come^[12]—using words that are similar to those the leaders of al Qaida would use decades later in reference to “true Islam”—Rushdoony argues that democracy and Christianity are incompatible: “Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life,” he writes. “One [biblical] faith, one law and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state.Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.”^[13]

The impact of Reconstructionism (often under other names) has grown even though Rushdoony has largely been forgotten even in Evangelical circles, let alone the wider world. He made the Evangelical world more susceptible to being politicized—and manipulated by some very smart people.

Religious leaders like Jerry Falwell who once had nothing to do with politics per se were influenced by the Reconstructionists. That in turn moved the whole Evangelical movement to the right and then into the political arena, where it became “normal” for Evangelical leaders to jump head first into politics with little-to-no regard for the separation of church and state.

Enter Hobby Lobby, Wheaton, Gordon and Christianity Today demanding their version of Shariah…

Without the work of the Reconstructionists, the next generation of religious Shariah activists like the president of Gordon (trying to use the courts, politics, and/or civil disobedience to impose their narrow theology on the majority of Americans) would have been relegated to some lonely street corner where they could gather to howl at the moon.

Instead, the twenty-first century’s theocrats at Wheaton, Gordon and Christianity Today (though they’d never so identify themselves as such) enjoy the backing of Fox News, and the Supreme Court.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His new book is —WHY I AM AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD: How to give love, create beauty and find peace

Available now on Amazon

 

Follow Frank on Twitter www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer

See Frank’s paintings http://www.frankschaefferart.com/

Follow Frank on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16

Contact Frank at http://www.frankschaeffer.com/

FOOTNOTES

[1] Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition, the Reformed faith, or Reformed theology) is a theological system. This branch of Christianity is named for French reformer John Calvin. According to Calvin, God is able to save every person upon whom He has mercy and His efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of humans.The system is based on Five Points: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. The doctrine of total depravity says that, as a consequence of the fall of humanity into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. The doctrine of unconditional election maintains that God chose from eternity those whom He will bring to Himself. The doctrine of limited atonement (also called particular redemption or definite atonement) asserts that Jesus’ substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’ death. The doctrine of irresistible grace says that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom He has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God’s timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel. The doctrine of perseverance (or preservation) of the saints asserts that since God is sovereign, His will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else.

[2] Theonomy comes from two Greek words: theos, meaning “God,” and nomos, meaning “law.”

[3] In presenting a theonomic view of biblical law, the Chalcedon Foundation is often referred to as promoting theocracy and “dominionism.” See www.chalcedon.edu/blog/blog.php.

[4] David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, 6th ed. (Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1999), 271.

[5] Gary North, Tools of Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 845.

[6] Greg Loren Durand, “Judicial Warfare: The Christian Reconstruction Movement and Its Blueprints for Dominion,” Crownrights.com, www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HistoryOfReconstructionMovement.html.

[7] Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), 59–60.

[8] Frederick Clarkson, “Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence,” The Public Eye, March–June 1994, www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html.

[9] Howard Ahmanson Jr. is heir to the Home Savings bank fortune. Howard became Rushdoony’s financier and served as a board member of Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation. In the 1970s Ahmanson started the career of Marvin Olasky, who became an important figure in Evangelical media. Howard, like me, later renounced his association with the Reconstructionists, even going so far as to quit the Republican Party in 2009 and reregister as a Democrat. He also stopped by my home in 2010, along with his charming wife, Roberta, to tell me that he liked my memoir Crazy for God (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2007).

[10] The Institutes of Biblical Law. Table of Contents—The Third Commandment. Swearing and Revolution. The Oath and Society. The Oath and Authority. The Fourth Commandment. The Sabbath and Work. The Sabbath and Law Appendix: The Economics of Sabbath Keeping—by Gary North V. The Fifth Commandment. The Authority of the Family. The Economics of the Family. Education and the Family. The Family and Delinquency. The Sixth Commandment. The Death Penalty. Hybridization and Law. Abortion. Restitution or Restoration. Military Laws and Production. Taxation. Quarantine Laws. Dietary Rules. Social Inheritance: Landmarks. The Seventh Commandment. Marriage. Family Law. Marriage and Monogamy. Incest. Sex and Crime. Adultery. Divorce. Homosexuality. The Transvestite. Bestiality VIII. The Eighth Commandment. Dominion. Theft. Restitution and Forgiveness. Liability of the Bystander. Money and Measure. Usury. Landmarks and Land. The Virgin Birth and Property. Fraud. Eminent Domain. Labor Laws. Prison. The Rights of Strangers, Widows, and Orphans. The Ninth Commandment. Corroboration. Perjury. False Witness. Slander Within Marriage. Slander as Theft. Judges. The Responsibility of Judges and Rulers. The Court. The Procedure of the Court. The Judgment of the Court. The Tenth Commandment. Covetousness. Special Privilege. The System. Notes on Law in Western Society<el>etc.

[11] Rousas John Rushdoony, “The Increase of His Government and Peace” (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Foundation, December 1967).

[12] Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1970).

[13] Ibid., 67.

[14] Robert George, “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” November 20, 2009, www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx.

[15] David Kirkpatrick, “The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker,” New York Times, December 16, 2009.

[16] Frank Schaeffer and Kathy Roth Douquet, AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service and How It Hurts Our Country (New York: HarperCollins 2006).

[17] Robert P. George, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” Catholic Online Opinion, October 16, 2008, Witherspoon Institute, www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30081.