C-4ing bridges

I officially despise Christian Reconstructionism

Advertisements

7 comments on “C-4ing bridges

  1. Angela Wittman says:

    Lord have mercy… For me it’s more of a dislike for those in the movement who are contentious, arrogant, extremists with their pet projects and willing to tolerate error.

  2. Colin the CR says:

    Well at least you didn’t say that you despise Christian Reconstruction theology.

    Should I assume your despleasure with CR has something to with the DP/VF scandal?

    Personally, I never saw much of a connection between CR and VF. The latter being merely a pro-Patriarchy kind of movement. Perhaps I have not kept up to date with the rise of the VF in Reformed circles. But I’ve never had much interest in “movements” per se. DP’s father, Howard, was probably closer to CR than DP is.

    Secondly, I think the only people who could ever consistently despise CR would be Atheists, and Dispensationalists. You, of course are neither. So please remember the old “baby and the bathwater” analogy.

    Lastly, perhaps I missed your own definition of “CR”? Maybe you gave it previously and are working from that definition alone. But for the past 25 years, I have always been amazed at seeing theologically Reformed Christians attempting to oppose CR for every possible reason, except for Scriptural or Confessional ones. Oh well, the truth is always despised…

    • My displeasure is something over the last few years. I promoted CR in college and seminary and took a lot of flak for it. I eventually saw that aside from a few ministers, it just seemed like Plutonium in the church. My critique of CR is essentially the same as Brian Schweretely’s.

      I have a section called the Theonomy Files. I might have defined CR in there.

    • As to a critique of CR theology: such really wasn’t my goal, but here is a cursory critique (I am just stating conclusions, not giving arguments).

      Exegetical: postmillennialism has exegetical problems.
      Logical: natural law is inevitable.

      But CRs have never really been able to simply offer the theology. Too often the wacky ecclesiology (Tyler, TX; Rushdoony, James Jordan) comes with it, with strings attached.

  3. I’ve listened to Brian Schwertly’s lectures over the past few years. And more recently reviewing his rebuttal to Winzer. And I hope to get to his series on “Presbyterian Theonomy” soon. I would say that I agree with 80% of what he says. Though he appears to have a sort of “love/hate” view towards CR. Obviously very anti-Tyler. And that’s fine. Greg Bahnsen was as much opposed to the Tyler-ites and rightly so. But I think Schwertley’s opposition and critique of Tyler in general, and Jordan and Sutton in particular, has very little to do with the core theology of CR.

    Still over all, Schwertley presents a very welcome internal critique of CR and an attempt at improving CR via his “Presbyterian Theonomy” thesis. Yet I still view CR as something broader in scope than what Scottish presbyterianism historically presents via Schwertley and others.

    As for Postmillennialism’s alleged “exegetical problems”, they are no where near as numerous as that found within historic Premillennialism. Please check out the book,Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? by Dr. David Brown (a Scottish presbyterian contemporary of Andrew Bonar).

    And please checkout Brian Schwertley’s paper: The Premillennial Deception: Chiliasm Examined in the Light of Scripture

    http://www.reformedonline.com/uploads/1/5/0/3/15030584/the_premillennial_deception.pdf

    As for “natural law”, we must be careful to avoid equivocation. There is natural law, ala the moral law written on the heart of man. And then there is “natural law” invented and developed by autonomous fallen man. Theonomy/CR has always opposed the latter while still affirming the former. Yet if the former is sufficient in of itself to govern society, then the OT Isrealites didn’t need the written decalogue, nor the civil laws given to them via special revelation. They could have gotten by with good ol’ natural law written on their hearts. Unless of course their fallen natures interfered with the use of those laws…

    See also John Frame’s article:

    Is Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture?

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-natural-revelation-sufficient-to-govern-culture/

    • I’ll get to Scwhertely’s paper on premil in due time.

      I have reservations about Frame. He was my apologetics prof in seminary, but I’ve more or less gone a different path.

      I know all the standard theonomic rebuttals against natural law. The problem is, the idea of “equity” is inescapable, and once you concede that natural law (of some variety) follows. That’s why all of the Puritans, while perhaps theonomic, held to a form of natural law. They knew what they were writing when they said “general equity.”

  4. Trent says:

    I agree with you. I think Christian reconstruction is quite bizarre at times with a legalistic ‘twang,’ if you will, to it.

Comments are closed.