I stand by all my earlier criticisms of Reconstructionism. Still, when I study the doctrine of sanctification and the image of God (particularly the Shorter Catechism’s language!) I cannot help but see “dominion” as an inescapable concept.
Reconstructionism’s problem was that they “grasped” too early. Many were trying to take over a compromised system and …I don’t know what they planned to do. Even when Gary North said (correctly) that the takeover will be by regeneration, not revolution, that begged the question, “Well, why bother with all this law-teaching on taking over the government at all?”
To make matters worse, if the Constitution is a compromise with Freemasonry, which I agree with Gary North and think it is, then why bother with the “Christianity and the Constitution” narrative?
The shame, though, is that dominion got so associated with Reconstructionism that no one will speak of it today. But if you reject a metaphysical approach to salvation and sanctification, and opt rather (and rightly) for a covenantal approach, you are left with something like dominion.
But don’t be alarmed. This doesn’t mean we have to go recon. It just means we need to be honest about the bible’s language.
- We’ve been renewed in the whole man after the image of Christ.
- We are priests and kings (Revelation). This is ruler language.
- We should not submit again to slavery (Galatians 5-6)
- We have the spirit of the Lord, which is freedom (2 Corinthians).
- If sin is ethical in content and not metaphysical, then salvation is ethical deliverance. Thus, dominion.
- John Wyclif.
Back in the Reformed days I used to be a big proponent of “rebelling against tyrants to restore the Constitution in the land.” Partly due to the fact the Bible says “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,” along with numerous NT references, I realized my position is simply untenable. Of course, while I should point out that the adolescents at Puritan Board were incapable of answering my arguments at the time, I still retract my arguments.
One of the reasons is that if “rebellion” against the political entity is justified (and I am not saying that it is), it can only be done so if it is to restore the moral order to the land, or something like that. For example, the Cossacks rebelled against the Masonic rulers in St Petersburg to protect Old Russia and Holy Russia (and to fight freemasonry, obviously). That’s conceivably legitimate.
But what of us in America? Am I a TEA partier who wants to protect the Constitution and get “constitutionally-minded” leaders back in the land? An emphatic no! I agree that the current regime is corrupt beyond all imagination (as was its predecessor and as will be its successor), but why should I want to protect and restore the Constitution? It is a Masonic document imposed by an oligarchic elite with the intention of eradicating and marginalizing the small, Christian farmer.
Even the (likely) occultic roots notwithstanding, I’ve argued before that restoring the Constitution (for some reason these right-wing folks honestly think the Regime in Washington will let them do that. They’re more likely to end up in a FEMA camp per Janet Napolitano’s wishes). Anyway, restoring the Constitution will simply reinforce the dialectic, eventually producing the same problems later on.
I reject the dialectic altogether and cannot imagine any realist scenario where I would condone a rebellion. As bad as D.C. is (and sadly, we are about to see it get much worse), it still provides (however incompetently) some form of stability, and that should be encouraged.