RECONSTRUCTION THEOLOGY AND HOME EDUCATION [Rushdoony, HSLDA, Gary North]

Houston Unschooling Group ^ | 1999 | Mary McCarthy

[Catspaw]

The article was in a magazine that's clearly reconstructionist.

Is Moore a reconstructionist?

[Law]

Is Moore a reconstructionist?

I don't know, but I've read a lot about him and several of his writings and haven't seen that. Given his position, it wouldn't make much sense for him to refuse the aid of any Christian group just because he doesn't agree with their eschatology (theology of the end times). That, I imagine, is why he has worked with Catholics (Alan Keyes) and dispensationalists (I'm pretty sure that's Jerry's position) who don't have the same views of the end times.

[ckca]

In your small minded, myopic view, mebbe.

[ckca]

Nah, just a little lectronic castration.

[wimpycat]

In your small minded, myopic view, mebbe.

Disagree with anything ckca says=small minded, myopic

Gotcha.

[ckca]

Finally.

[Law]

Oh, I'm at my kid limit, thats for certain - not a socialist in the bunch, either. Good American materialists, who like the notion that they live in a nation where their opportunities are boundless, that they can pursue any career they want, and aren't trapped by their gender as women are in unenlightened cultures and societies.

I wouldn't think y'all would understand that.

You might be surprised what we'd understand. Christians, like conservatives, don't fit the stereotypes of the Washington Post.

At any rate, even if we didn't understand, that wouldn't matter, as the primary political aim of Christians is to be left alone to practice our faith without government meddling. We want a much smaller government (more money in your pocket). We want to end socialist education (no more property taxes and you can send your children to the market-accountable school of your choice and still have money left over).

Our strongest discipline is expulsion from the church, so we don't hold on to those, including women, who grew up among us but want to leave the church and pursue another path.

So what's so scary?

[wimpycat]

But now for the pleasantest part of my duty. It falls to my lot to propose on behalf of the guests the health of Principal Slubgob and the Tempters’ Training College. Fill your glasses. What is this I see? What is this delicious bouquet I inhale? Can it be? Mr. Principal, I unsay all my hard words about the dinner. I see, and smell, that even under wartime conditions the College cellar still has a few dozen of sound old vintage Pharisee. Well, well, well. This is like old times. Hold it beneath your noses for a moment, gentledevils. Hold it up to the light. Look at those fiery streaks that writhe and tangle in its dark heart, as if they were contending. And so they are. You know how this wine is blended? Different types of Pharisee have been harvested, trodden, and fermented together to produce its subtle flavour. Types that were most antagonistic to one another on Earth. Some were all rules and relics and rosaries; others were all drab clothes, long faces, and petty traditional abstinences from wine or cards or the theatre. Both had in common their self-righteousness and an almost infinite distance between their actual outlook and anything the Enemy really is or commands. The wickedness of other religions was the really live doctrine in the religion of each; slander was its gospel and denigration its litany. How they hated each other up where the sun shone! How much more they hate each other now that they are forever conjoined but not reconciled. Their astonishment, their resentment, at the combination, the festering of their eternally impenitent spite, passing into our spiritual digestion, will work like fire. Dark fire. All said and done, my friends, it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by “Religion” ever vanishes from the Earth. It can still send us the truly delicious sins. Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar.

Your Imminence, your Disgraces, my Thorns, Shadies, and Gentledevils: I give you the toast of – Principal Slubgob and the College!

C.S. Lewis--"Screwtape Proposes a Toast"

[wimpycat]

The only people permitted to vote would be members of 'biblically correct' churches. Most notably, a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning…a reconstructed America would have little room for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or even non-Reconstructionist Christians.

If your strongest discipline is expulsion from the church, and that's how you like it and want it to remain, if you want school choice, if you want much smaller government, etc., etc. then this article is not even about you. I know this article isn't about me, and I'm a Christian; Southern Baptist, specifically.

[jmc813]

At any rate, even if we didn't understand, that wouldn't matter, as the primary political aim of Christians is to be left alone to practice our faith without government meddling. We want a much smaller government (more money in your pocket). We want to end socialist education (no more property taxes and you can send your children to the market-accountable school of your choice and still have money left over).

It seems as if those are somewhat libertarian goals. The people on this thread which you are arguing with, while nice people, have a great fear of libertarianism/constitutionalism/small-government. Basically New-Deal fans domestically with strong foreign policy views.

[Law]

It seems as if those are somewhat libertarian goals. The people on this thread which you are arguing with, while nice people, have a great fear of libertarianism/constitutionalism/small-government. Basically New-Deal fans domestically with strong foreign policy views.

The chancellor emphasized that none of his children were socialists; he doesn't seem to be a New Deal fan. Hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong. But if not, his views should be very compatible with a more biblical government.

[SalukiLawyer]

You miss the same point everybody misses with "Reconstructionism". Here is a thought-experiment to clear things up for you.

If a legal election is held under the terms of our Constitution, and the Federal Judiciary sustains the decision of the ballot by a vote of the majority of the Supreme Court....is this "imposing tyranny?"

With all due respect, I don't understand the point. Do you mean that if enough of the American voting public can be convinced to repeal the First Amendment and turn the U.S. into a theocracy would this be imposing tyranny? If so, the answer would be yes. It is not a difficult question.

I mean, honestly, do you think it would be okay if the majority were to, say, take the franchise away from non-Christians, even if it changed our form of government first so as to be able to do so "legally?"

I'm not afraid this is going to happen, and I don't think that anyone who would advocate this is representative of Christians. But it's your thought-experiment, so I think it's only fair for you to follow it through. I am getting the impression that people are reacting more to a perceived agenda of some posters than bothering to stake out their positions. If no one here supports turning the U.S. into some sort of Christian nation where adherents of the official religion are favored, then this is just a not-very-interesting wrasslin' match between two fellow Freepers. Okay, I admit it, a strangely compelling wrasslin' match :-)

Those who do advocate such a program should be proud to come out and say so. Then the merits can be debated.

[WillRain]

The article is hogwash on many levels and I'll not waste my time on a point by point but I'll give you just one example...

On the author's list of commited reconstructionists is Tim LaHaye.

You might have heard of LaHaye...he's the creator of the Left Behind series of books which express his theological views in fictional format.

Those views involve a pre-millenial rapture which is the antithesis of reconstructionalism.

Given that the author could overlook a phenomena as huge as the "Left Behind" books I am forced to conclude the s/he is to inept to have any clue what the rest of those folks believe.

Yes, Chalcedon is reconstructionist, perhaps many others there as well. But given the inclusion of LaHaye, there is no way way to trust the article on anyone else.

BTW: Speaking as a homeschooler who has not the tinyest delusion of reconstructionalism in his theology, I still think that America can return to the Christian WORLDVIEW held by her founders (I do NOT think she actually WILL, but I think it is possible) but that in no way means that I advocate the enforcing of Christian tenents by force of law - such would be anethema to me.
Likewise, I do not have the slighest temptation to install an Old Testament theocracy, but I can easily affirm that God's standards do not change. There is no contridiction in that.

So selectivly quoting Ferris (and probably others) carries practically no weight.

So, at the end of the day, the article undermines its own credibility and is thus - useless.

[LPM1888]

Wishful thinking. CP has been discredited, and this article repeatedly revealed for what it is. That is success.

And CP's basic premise has been derailed and forgotten. That is success.

CP's premise is very clear and to the point. All you have demonstrated is your inability to present an intelligent argument. Or for that matter any argument at all.

Your posts have shown that Reconstructionism Theology is backed by people with an inability to present an intelligent argument.

[EveningStar]

Why would you take such offense to this article unless you actually endorsed the tenets of Christian Reconstructionism and Christian Dominionism? Do you realize that CP simply chummed the waters of dogmatism? And that you and your friends didn't need to bite, but you did? Why? Do you really think these people who advocate disenfranchisement of those with which they disagree and rationalize stoning disobedient offspring are channeling the word of God?

[Apogee]

And your primary sources for these statements are?
Any perusal of the speeches and writings of most of these men would show that their beliefs were contrary to our modern definition, at least, of deism. Even Franklin, who identified himself as a deist, either did not hold to our understanding of the term, or changed from it over time.
I have found that most of the souce material for such comments comes from lectures in the university, which are not generally footnoted well, as they can't be.
If you can provide me with primary source material concerning this, I would be delighted,
thank you

[Dr. Eckleburg]

what's so scary?

I also don't get what's so scary about the big, bad Reconstructionists.

If I understand correctly, they envision an eventual world where Christ has opened the hearts of nearly everyone to the glory of His kingdom.

Shudder. A fate worse than death for some, it would appear. Can't have too much of that glory; we might lose sight of the really important stuff.

[Robert_Paulson2]

What is amazing to me is the folks that cannot see the difference between Christians who are political... and power hungry tyrants using the trappings of religious ideology to gain power over other people POLITICALLY.

After two years of discussing talibunnies, you would think we would recognise the "stone the sinners" crowd on a forum like this and across the nation. Dominion theology is wrong. Jesus said he would build his church. These folks want to take his job and hijack it to build political kingdoms for themselves... an Ozzie and Harriet eternal garden party where all who do not toe the line... are stoned, marginalized and ostracized... just like the whores and lepers of Jesus' day were treated by the Scribes and Pharisees.

We are allowing some private religious schools to train up these "punish all sinners" brown shirts, right here in America, while criticizing the president for not shutting down the sharia schools in Pakistan.

Chanellor is on to something here.
I know dozens of Christ honoring freepers on this site who see it just this way too. they see the dangers of the religious zealots posing as Christians, and bringing our religious freedoms to a halt... one day because of their virtual terrorist outlook.

Some folks who don't agree with stem cell research, openly discuss attacking schools, research centers and medical personnel with acts of violence. One day, when a kid who is under their tutelage actually does the deed... the circle will be complete. Christian extremists will have fully become the very thing they criticized in the islamic nutcake society... aka the talibunnies and al quaeda wearing crucifixes instead of turbans and burkas.

We can love Jesus, believe his words, and follow his commands without ramming down other's throats at gunpoint... or under the aegis of federal laws.

I don't believe these folks are actually Christians... wolves in sheeps clothing... maybe. Tyrannists in the making... definitely. CP and others are right to point these links and writings out.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Thats because the do believe their pastors and leaders.
They pay them.