Monday, October 18, 2004
God's Country
A friend weighs in on yesterday's post regarding George W. Bush and the search for certainty:
If you're going to undertake your own study of the Christian Reconstruction movement, be prepared for some tough sledding. The damn vocabulary alone would daunt a student studying for the SATs: for example, antinomianism, which is salvation through faith, not works or living a moral life, a concept that Reconstructionists reject; presuppositionalism, the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true without the need for proof; and postmillenialism, the idea that Christ cannot return to Earth until much of the world has converted to Christianity--a critical difference between Reconstructionists and evangelicals, who, to throw out another term, are dispensational premillennialists. (They believe most of the conditions for the Second Coming have already been met and are waiting around, tapping their wristwatches, and wondering where he is.)
As postmillennialists, what the Reconstructionists want to do is impose Old Testament law on everyone to make it possible for Christ to return and set up the kingdom of God on Earth. He won't come back until they do. So you can see why they'd want to take control of the government and insinuate it into every aspect of citizens' lives. And they mean every aspect--in both public policy and private morality, everything must be subject to religious law.
(If you want to wade into this swamp, the folks at Political Research Associates do an excellent job of explaining Reconstructionism at their Christian Right and Theocracy page. ReligiousTolerance.Org also does a nice job of explaining the basics here.)
I am glad that my friend mentioned Jim Wallis, because I meant to do so yesterday, at least before my post blew up like Barry Bonds on steroids. I've quoted Wallis and linked to his stuff at Sojourners in the past--he's one of the most sensible voices we have on the role of religion in society and the relationship between church and state. It was a good thing for the country when Bush was listening to him, and very bad news that Bush isn't listening anymore.
A friend weighs in on yesterday's post regarding George W. Bush and the search for certainty:
Yes, yes, yes. You are dead on about the whole search for certainty thing. Please, though, take notice of the quote from [Jim] Wallis about Bush turning into "a messianic American Calvinist." Wallis isn't choosing his words lightly. There are people out there who would embrace that description of themselves; they have money, power, organization, and a mission upon which they are hyper-focused. That mission, as one church website puts it, is to extend "the kingdom of Jesus Christ over all individual lives through all areas of society and in all nations and cultures." Notice the use of the word "kingdom." They don't say they want to extend the "love," "peace," or "grace," of God to all people. What they want to extend is CONTROL. And they are all about using politics to do it. They take the Jewish notion of societal responsibility and use it as an excuse to subordinate government to their definition of justice, holiness, and morality. It's a theocracy, baby. The New Canaan. Love it or leave it.This particular definition of what these Calvinists have in mind largely captures the essence of Christian Reconstructionism, the idea that the state should be governed under Old Testament law. When I first started studying CR six or seven years ago, it was mostly for entertainment value--open-mouthed amazement at how ridiculous some hardcore fundies could be. Back then, even some of the movement's major advocates thought we might be a thousand years away from seeing it happen. My guess is that they would not be so pessimistic now.
If you're going to undertake your own study of the Christian Reconstruction movement, be prepared for some tough sledding. The damn vocabulary alone would daunt a student studying for the SATs: for example, antinomianism, which is salvation through faith, not works or living a moral life, a concept that Reconstructionists reject; presuppositionalism, the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true without the need for proof; and postmillenialism, the idea that Christ cannot return to Earth until much of the world has converted to Christianity--a critical difference between Reconstructionists and evangelicals, who, to throw out another term, are dispensational premillennialists. (They believe most of the conditions for the Second Coming have already been met and are waiting around, tapping their wristwatches, and wondering where he is.)
As postmillennialists, what the Reconstructionists want to do is impose Old Testament law on everyone to make it possible for Christ to return and set up the kingdom of God on Earth. He won't come back until they do. So you can see why they'd want to take control of the government and insinuate it into every aspect of citizens' lives. And they mean every aspect--in both public policy and private morality, everything must be subject to religious law.
(If you want to wade into this swamp, the folks at Political Research Associates do an excellent job of explaining Reconstructionism at their Christian Right and Theocracy page. ReligiousTolerance.Org also does a nice job of explaining the basics here.)
I am glad that my friend mentioned Jim Wallis, because I meant to do so yesterday, at least before my post blew up like Barry Bonds on steroids. I've quoted Wallis and linked to his stuff at Sojourners in the past--he's one of the most sensible voices we have on the role of religion in society and the relationship between church and state. It was a good thing for the country when Bush was listening to him, and very bad news that Bush isn't listening anymore.
