Commenting on my definition of Reconstructionism in my “Definitions” post, the editor of a Reconstructionist journal demands that I repent of having borne “false witness” in saying that I thought R.J. Rushdoony’s theology of patriarchy, devotion to an unfettered free market, and call for the institution of Mosaic Law in modern-day society was an un-Biblical distortion of the Gospel.
Well, I can’t.
Now, if I had said that Rushdoony was Satan, that would be bearing false witness. If I had said that his every theological belief was the product of LSD, that would be bearing false witness. And if I called him any sort of nasty names, that would simply be uncalled for — but I didn’t do that, either. I said that I thought Reconstruction bore little resemblance to the Gospel of the New Testament, and I stand by that assertion. Not defiantly, not stubbornly, but because I believe it to be true. I appreciate my reader’s concern, and unless he’s suggesting that Rushdoony is not a major contributor to, if not the founder of, Christian Reconstruction, I’ll remind him that my opinion is just that — opinion. Now, if Rushdoony somehow had nothing to do with the horror that is Christian Reconstructionism, it would be slanderous of me to connect him with that.
I think, however, that wasn’t his point, and so I stand by mine.
You seem not to understand that an “opinion” can be a false witness. And your “opinion” regarding Rushdoony is, in fact, a false witness and thus a sin and thus requires confession (to God) and repentance. But, then, maybe I am wrong. If I am, show me where, from Scripture, Rushdoony was wrong about the things you mention. You will not, of course, do this because you’re just name-calling — typical of those who I have seen, over the years, criticize Rushdoony but offer no facts or evidence to back up their criticism.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
Comment by John Lofton, Recovering Republican — August 20, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
A good place to start, in reference to Rushdoony’s insistence on instituting Mosaic law in current-day society, might be the account in the Gospel of John wherein Jesus absolves the woman found in the act of adultery. My reading of this suggests that He offered, and established, a new way of looking at sin that, while failing to satisfy Mosaic law (which He in His perfect sinlessness did), more than fully — redemptively — fulfills the law of love that reached its apex in the Gospel. Further, even if I were to embrace Rushdoony’s call for reinstitution of the Law, I find that he is less than even-handed in its execution (no pun intended). His theonomy calls for the maintenance of societal (gender and class) distinctions obliterated, I believe, by the Gospel. His is not the way of Christ on either account. Thanks for your comments.
Keely
Comment by Keely Emerine Mix — August 20, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
I want to be sure what you are saying, please. First,however, I note that you cited no specific Rushdoony statement and then showed how, from a Biblical perspective, it is wrong.
Re: “Rushdoony’s insistence on instituting Mosaic law,” are you saying, for example, that you believe the 10 Commandments do not apply today, that Christians are free to ignore them because they are no longer valid? My own belief is that the 10 Commandments and other Laws of God do not need to be “reinstituted” because they have never been repealed. God does not change; neither does His Law. As Jesus said, quoting the book of Deuteronomy, man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. And what, exactly (quote, please), did Rushdoony say that, in your words, means he was for “the maintenance of societal (gender and class) distinctions”? Please answer my questions and will try to be responsive to yours. Thank you.
Comment by John Lofton, Recovering Republican — August 21, 2008 @ 2:24 am