Well, no sooner was the ink dried (digits uploaded) on Larry Ball’s article in The Aquila Report–about the thriving Christian Reconstructionist movement–than an opposing article appeared–reprinted from the critic’s blog–casting aspersions on Ball’s article and regurgitating some of the same old, misguided notions that critics have had for at least the last 39 years (since 1973) about Christian Reconstruction.
The writer is a doctoral candidate at Emory University.
He purports to be “defending the way of the cross”.
Which is pietist-speak for “defending institutionally-sanctioned, pessimistic, interminable-suffering-equals-sanctification, defeatist, no-hope-until-Jesus-comes Christianity.”
Defending it against what (or who), exactly?
Why, against those liberal social-gospelers and their theological partners-in-crime, the Reconstructionists, that’s who!
He assumes, like so many of his fellow misinformed critics that Reconstructionism is a political movement, with political aims and aspirations, and political strategies for ultimate political victory, conquest, defeat, total subjugation of “the enemy” and complete and absolute global domination and (wait for it) DOMINION of planet earth! (for Jesus, of course)
He has serious misgivings about trusting his temporal destiny and that of his children to these over-zealous, out-of-control-freaks.
For the record, I’ll be much more hopeful about my children’s future if the Christian Reconstructionists do not take dominion over this country, and I suspect the same is true for most Christians. America is by no means the kingdom of God (who ever said it would be, except perhaps the Reconstructionists or other social gospelers) but I would not want to live in any other place or time. God has blessed us immeasurably and it is by no means evident to me that America is in decline (just remember Jimmy Carter’s famous speech; he thought we were in decline too). With that in view I’ll take Paul’s approach to civil government as a model rather than Caleb and Joshua’s attitude toward the Canaanites.
There are too many fallacies to deal with in this short excerpt. This one is perceptual: “and it is by no means evident to me that America is in decline…” Really, I think this doctoral candidate needs to study a little more history and current events–and actual Christian Reconstructionist literature–and a lot less Reformed/Calvinistic ecclesiastical and confessional orthodoxy.
You can read the entire article here.
Christian Reconstructionist 
I’ve read some outlandish doozies of straw-man-ism and some utterly underwhelming attempts at anti-Reconstruction ‘scholarship’ in my few days, and sadly Mr. Tuininga’s is right there with them. Its as if he never read anything a Reconstructionist actually wrote. The fear of political coercion is always the clue that they haven’t understood Reconstruction, and gives the appearance that they have only read reviews and critiques of Reconstructionists rather than primary source material.
That seems to be par for the course, Scott, doesn’t it?
I’m not a Reconstructionist or a Theonomist for other reasons. But I have to agree that Matthew Tuininga’s logic in his article is completely flawed. Why is it a moral obligation for the government to keep God’s law in regards to helping the poor but not to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman? Why is it not the government’s obligation to forbid homosexuality? Why is it not the government’s obligation to protect the lives of the unborn children in the womb? This sort of irrationalism and illogical reasoning flows directly out of neo-orthodoxy and post modernism. In fact, the late Gordon H. Clark said that Van Til’s theology of paradox and contradiction is just neo-orthodox irrationalism posing as “Evangelicalism”. Matthew Tuininga is basically a closet liberal.
The theological left has its own version of Reconstructionism. It takes the form of liberation theology, feminist theology, and gay theology. Anyone who dares to disagree will be guilty of crimes against the totalitarian state.
The other problem here is that so-called “Evangelicals” go to liberal institutions of higher learning for their doctoral training and imbibe a liberal worldview there. If they were going there to take on the establishment they would never be awarded a degree.