I stumbled upon this oldie, but goody from the Chalcedon archived website. This really did encourage me.
I have editted it only in formatting to make it more readable.
Please enjoy.
--------------------------------
Why Do So Many Reformed Christians Hate Reconstructionists?
by Rev. Brian M. Abshire
ver the last few years, I have talked with numerous people in Reformed
(mostly Presbyterian) churches about theonomy and Christian reconstructionism.
From laymen in the pews, to college and seminary students, academics and
clergy, I have asked people leading questions, and then let them sound off.
You'd be amazed at what you can learn if you just nod knowingly and let people
just say what's on their mind. Opinions are generally quite strong on both
sides of the issue. However, what is astounding is the sheer intensity of
negative feelings towards Christian Reconstruction; the word "hate" is not
inappropriate. Now this is interesting in light of the other doctrinal issues
that divide Reformed Christians. Many Reformed people strongly disagree on some
doctrines (e.g. millennial views), but what is there about this issue that so
angers some people that they will say anything, do anything to destroy the
opposition? Even more amazingly is that many, many people on the negative side
have read few if any actual reconstructionist books or literature. They base
their opinions on the adverse critique heard from others. Why do so many people
have such strong negative feelings about something of which they have had
little or no personal exposure ?
I want to offer what is basically an outsider's perspective. After
coming to faith in Christ, I spent most of the 70's stationed overseas while on
active duty with the USAF. After college and seminary, I spent most of the 80's
studying and ministering in England. During that whole time, I had no personal
contact with Reconstructionists in this country. My own views were developed by
an exhaustive reading of the literature which was a part of my doctoral work in
the sociology of religion. Through God's providence, I was led to embrace the
Reformed faith and came to love the Westminster Standards as the best
expression of Biblical truth by reading Reconstructionist authors. The
Reconstructionists led me to the Puritans, and once I read them I was hooked!
Imagine my surprise that by time I returned to the States, positions had so
polarized that many regarded theonomy and Reformed theology as incompatible!
So I talked little, listened a lot and tried to understand. I offer the
following suggestions as to why theonomy and Christian reconstruction have met
with such antipathy. This is not a scientific survey, but rather one man's
perspective. You'll forgive me if I focus on Presbyterian churches; they're the
ones I know best. Perhaps if we understand why so many people feel so strongly,
we can do something to change it.
One factor is that the Reformed witness in this country is fairly
small. Most Presbyterian Teaching Elders went to the same seminaries, had the
same professors, read the same journals, books and magazines (usually written
by people known personally to them). Many are in the same Churches and
Presbyteries, serve on committees and boards together and attend the same
General Assemblies. This makes for a very intimate group. Thus when some of
these men's views are critiqued (dare I say "exposed") by Christian
Reconstructionists, etc., it can easily be perceived as a personal attack
against people well known, well respected and well loved.
And let's be honest, certain writers who call them themselves
Reconstructionists can be pretty vicious. Yes, I know Calvin and Luther made
strong statements against their theological adversaries (my favorite is
Luther's comment about Zwingli's view of the Sacraments when he said, "I'd
rather drink blood with a Papist than wine with a Zwinglian.") But there is
also a cultural context to Calvin and Luther's polemical tone that is not
justified today. Is there not a difference between those who literally were
dying for their faith and today's admittedly heated but safe debate? Yes, men
who hold to theonomy have been denied ordination, excluded from Presbyteries
and even had their professional careers destroyed by anti-theonomists. Yes,
this is unjust, unrighteous and will bring God's condemnation. But it's not the
same as being burnt at the stake. What we forget is that the battle over
theonomy is a battle within the Reformed Church. Those are our brothers (for
the most part) on the other side, brothers we should be trying to win.
Many people who oppose theonomy state again and again that it is not so
much the theology but the vitriolic attitude of some theonomists they object
to. It is their friends, their classmates, their professors, their brother
elders who are being ridiculed, attacked, derided. Even though they may not
have thought through the position themselves, they take personal offense for
their friends. Thus before the issues can ever be discussed, the well has been
poisoned.
Now this is merely personal opinion, but it seems to me that there are
an inordinate number of "bulging forebrains" represented in theonomic circles.
Theonomists tend to be some of the brightest, most theologically astute
Christians around. Such people take to academic studies the way a fat man takes
to an all you can eat special (excuse me, I shouldn't have said "fat man," I
meant "horizontally challenged"). The problem is, brainy people don't often
understand why the rest of us don't see immediately what is so crystal clear to
them. If they are not careful, impatience can give way to an arrogant,
supercilious and contemptuous attitude towards those of us who have to get by with significantly lower IQ's (cf.
1 Cor 8:1ff).
Thus it is not necessarily
their theology that causes the problem, but their interpersonal relationship
skills. Loving the truth, standing firm on the truth, loudly and proudly
proclaiming the truth does not excuse being obnoxious. Thus when such people
become the perceived spokesmen for the movement, the entire group is classified
by the arrogance of the few.
Secondly, epistemologically self conscious Recontructionists have
thought through many social and cultural issues and are compelled, by obedience
to God, to act consistently on their convictions. For example, Rushdoony was
one of the first to call attention to the messianic character of American
education thirty years ago and the Christian and homeschooling movement was
born. I could no more send my children to the Molech State Schools today then I
could offer a pinch of incense to the genius of the Emperor. This is a
non-negotiable issue.
Now imagine the following scenario (reported to have actually occurred
in different churches over the last 15 years). Men with strong convictions
about public education rise to positions of responsibility in their churches
(they're usually among the most theologically adept, generous and serving
people in the church). Such men see a real problem; their pastor still sends
his children to the local State school. Now at first, they may be quite
understanding, willing to give the pastor a chance to grow, loaning him books,
articles, pamphlets all about the dangers of public education. But the Pastor
cannot afford the tuition of the local Christian school (besides, it's run by
Baptists or Charasmatics!) and his wife won't hear of home schooling. So the
pastor resists. The more pressure theonomists put on him, the touchier he gets.
Before you know it there are hurt feelings on both sides. Some members of the
session begin doubting the spiritual integrity of their pastor. The pastor
doubts the commitment of his elders to support and encourage him. The situation
gets tense. Eventually, he asks around, finds another church and leaves.
However, you can bet that his Presbytery knows the real reason he left; those
***** theonomists drove him out of his church! And if they did it to poor old
Joe, they just might do it to me!
Now, how are the pastors in the rest of the Presbytery going to respond
when theonomists in their churches want to start a weekly Bible study or Sunday
School class? Such men may have formed no opinions themselves about the
theonomic doctrine (after all if it wasn't taught in Theology 101, it ain't in
Scripture), but they certainly have formed opinions about the people who hold
to such a theology. Those people are divisive, schismatic, contentious and if
you let them into your church, your job may be in danger.
Most laymen never understand just how fragile their minister's job is
and therefore how sensitive he is about threats to his security. If he offends
the wrong people, he can find himself out on the street, with a lifetime spent
on developing advanced degrees and arcane skills that won't put food on his
family's table while he's between churches. It's bad enough he has to deal with
the contentious old women (of both sexes) who scrutinize every word he speaks,
criticize every intimate detail of his personal and family life, whine
incessantly when they don't get their own way. Now he has people attacking his
integrity and putting his job and his family's welfare at risk over some
theological perspective he's never even heard of! No wonder he's both a little
afraid and a little angry at theonomists! And once you have a negative
predisposition, it is awfully easily to incorporate any new data that supports
your beliefs, and ignore data which contradicts it. Is it any wonder that he
then tries to find a theological justification to rid himself of something so
personally threatening?
Thirdly, sadly, people are usually willing to believe the worst about
others. In the kind of negative atmosphere described above, the most outrageous
charges against Reconstructionism and theonomy have found fertile soil.
Repeatedly when I have asked people why they hate theonomy so vehemently, they
respond with something like the following; at best, theonomists want to replace
the gospel with social action (like the old liberal theology), at worse, it is
a extreme right wing political power group seeking to overthrow the government
and impose Biblical Law through a tyrannical centralist State (something like
Iran). Now of course when I ask them where they got such information, what
books, articles, speakers, etc. propound this view, the response is usually a
shrug of the shoulders that "well, everybody knows..." The Christian
Reconstructionist movement has lost the first stage of the propaganda war.
Reconstructionists have allowed their views to be manipulated and
misrepresented by those hostile to their position, with the result that there
is a negative predisposition before the discussion ever begins. True,
Reconstructionists have written volumes defining and defending their position
against these canards, but nobody ever reads them except other
Reconstructionists. The only thing the average Christian has ever read is
Rodney Klapp's Christianity Today article (some might say, "hatchet job")
"Democracy as Heresy." But if their pastor is so much against it, therefore, it
must be wrong!
Fourthly, Reconstructionism is often feared and hated because it is
personally threatening. It calls men to be responsible and live according to
God's Law. A seminary professor's once critiqued one of my sermons for his
class by saying, "Brian, that message has too much 'heavy baggage' in it.
People don't come to church to feel bad, they come to feel good." Interestingly
enough, this sermon was preached long before I had ever heard the word
"theonomy." It was simply a call for Christians to be obedient to God and do
what He tells them to do. But that's "heavy baggage." If you call people to
account, demand repentance and loving obedience to the sovereign Lord, you are
going to get some people angry, upset the powers that be and maybe find
yourself looking for a new church. There is emotional and spiritual as well as
physical inertia. It is hard to rethink one's life and ministry. The average
church already has enough infighting, politicking, backbiting, etc. on so many
issues that pastors spend much of their time trying to spread oil on troubled
waters. Now, theonomists want him to preach on things even more controversial?
Get real!
The sad fact is that we have a church compromised with humanism. Even
Reformed seminaries like to see prospective pastors get their undergraduate
degrees from prestigious, secular universities. We then take the best and
brightest and send them off for more indoctrination at secular graduate schools
before they can teach in our seminaries. Five to seven years of intensive
academic instruction in institutions that hate God and His word has to have an
effect. It's not that our men lose their faith, but often they are like good
quality solingen steel blades that have had their edges ground off. These men
then return to seminary classrooms and pass on their blunted world view to
their students.
Now along comes that bright young man we were talking about earlier;
you remember the one with the high IQ and poor interpersonal skills? He's been
reading, thinking, evaluating, preparing himself for the ministry. Then when he
finally gets to seminary, he finds his professors mushy headed, indecisive and
unable to consistently apply the Reformed faith. Like Francis Schaeffer's book
"How Should We Then Live," his professors are brilliant at critiquing the
problem, but can offer no distinctly Biblical solutions. How can they? We
haven't been doing our homework for more than a century.
Now imagine our bright young theonomists in this class. He knows the
answers, he's read about them, discussed them, thought through the
implications. He asks the instructor embarrassing questions, objects to
questionable statements, holds the professor accountable to be what his
doctrine says he is.
Now the instructor has spent a great deal of time, effort
and personal sacrifice to get just where he is today. He loves teaching and he
expects his students to give him what he gave his professors, attention,
respect, loyalty, and maybe just a little hero worship. Instead, he has some
young punk, 15-20 years his junior questioning everything he is teaching. And
even if the theonomist is gracious, uncontentious and gentle in spirit, he is
still calling the professor's life work into question. Whether he admits it or
not, the professor knows that somewhere along the line, he has imbibed deeply
at the humanist well. He had to, otherwise it is unlikely he would have ever
made it through his secular graduate program. It is tremendously difficult to
recant what he has spent a lifetime learning. Is it any wonder that the
professor gets upset, threatened, angry at theonomists? At best he treats the
position with a sort of benign contempt; yes the young often hold foolish
ideas, just give him time and he'll grow out of it. At worst the professor may
decide to end this man's professional ministry before it gets off the ground.
Furthermore, the theonomist's fellow students will not appreciate his
unsettling ways in the class. They just want to complete their assignments, get
their degree and get out there and preach. Now, one of their contemporaries is
upsetting the professor, asking hard questions and generally making a nuisance
of himself. Thus both professors and students come to see theonomy as
threatening to the peace and well being of the Church. If these people would
just shut up and go away we could all get on with our ministries.
I had the advantage of going back to seminary for a bit after being an
ordained minister for almost ten years. I sat in several classes watching the
above dynamics. I tried to sit quietly and stay out of such discussions
(usually unsuccessfully). However, the damage had already been done. Previous
students had muddied the waters and the professors were now prepared to deal
with the upstarts. Furthermore, the word was out; if theonomists ever wanted to
get a church after graduation, they'd better keep their opinions to themselves.
Now watch the process here. For the reasons listed above, a great many
pastors have a negative predisposition to theonomy and reconstructionism. They
have adopted emotional filters that see theonomy as a threat to their peace,
dangerous to their careers, unsettling to their churches. If members of their
congregation asks "what's all this stuff about theonomy" the response is
usually chilling. The average laymen only has to hear this a couple of times
before he "knows" that theonomy is a dangerous thing and no good Reformed
Christian would ever have anything to do with it. Thus, though never having
actually read anything ever written by a theonomist, never evaluated the
exegetical or theological merits, or even met someone who holds to the
position, the die has been cast; theonomists are bad news!
Now I have deliberately not discussed the wolves in the fold. There are
those who understand exactly what theonomy is, know well enough that it has a
long and distinguished heritage within the Reformed camp, understand its life
and culture transforming implications and hate it vehemently. They hate
theonomy because they hate God's law. They hate God's Law because they hate
God. But that is not the focus of this article.
If the above assessment is correct, then the battle is not yet lost.
Whether they like it or not, the anti-theonomists are borrowing heavily from
Reconstructionist writings. As our culture degenerates into chaos, the
"principled pluralists" who seek accommodation with Humanism are finding their
voices growing shriller and fainter. American Christians wants answers, real
answers, Biblical answers to social, economic, and political problems. And the
only ones who are offering them answers are the theonomists. Now the average
Christian may find his theonomy watered down, second hand and received through
"respectable" people who never acknowledge that their ideas have a theonomic
source, but they need the answers and theonomists are supplying them. Ten years
ago when I spoke on home and Christian schools, no one listened. Now, a great
number of Reformed Christians have abandoned the public school system. In the
late seventies, the only Christian solution to social chaos was a
pre-tribulation rapture. Now, Christian activists were directly responsible for
electing the first Republican congress in my lifetime. Twenty years ago, the
problems of poverty and social justice were the pervue of liberal, mainline,
socialist churches. Today, even our local Southern Baptist church has a food
pantry. Jesus said that it only takes a little leaven to leaven the whole lump
of dough. And theonomy has been leavening.
But the the false accusations, misrepresentations and prevarications
that dog theonomists still needs to be addressed. We can start by cultivating a
gentle and gracious spirit. It is not enough to expose folly and refute error.
Reconstructionists must be able to demonstrate through acts of love and mercy
that they not only have the truth, but are serious about applying it as well.
Chalcedon's work with Romanian orphans has won the admiration of even the God
haters. They are stymied in their assault because they see this good work and
glorify our Father in heaven. More of this is needed on every level. Let
theonomists in non-theonomic churches be the most supportive and respectful of
their pastors, not compromising the truth, but also willing to love and
encourage the man God has placed in leadership. Let Reconstructionists open
their homes and show hospitality to the saints. Let theonomists demonstrate the
power of biblical law by raising godly, hard working, obedient Christian
children who are respectful of adults, diligent in their studies, productive
for their families. Let fathers catechize and discipline their children,
husbands love and serve their wives, women submit and respect their husbands.
Let theonomic Churches lead the way in applying Biblical principles to the
poor, the needy, the oppressed.
They may argue with the theology, they may ridicule the eschatology,
they may shake their heads over confidence in the sovereignty of God, but
loving husbands, gracious women, respectful children, godly homes, gentle
spirits, and acts of charity and mercy are irrefutable. The war of hearts and
minds will be won, when theonomists demonstrate that "he who would be great
among you must become the servant of all..."
AMEN!
