Posted under Christianity & Political Correctness & Religion
The Las Vegas Sun has attempted to link Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle to Christian Reconstructionism. For anyone with a lick of understanding of Christian theology this link is manifestly false. From reading the article, Sharon Angle seems to have what would be in her conservative Christian circles a rather ordinary “Christian America” understanding. Hardly earth shaking.
That said, the reaction by ordinary conservatives to the link, like their reaction to the charge of racism, is often less than helpful. Can’t they see that “How dare she suggest that Sharon Angle is one of those awful Christian Reconstructionists!” both empowers the enemy and harms your co-belligerents?
Below is my post on the matter at AmSpec. The first part clears up some imprecision in the Hemingway reaction. The rest gets at the heart of the matter.
For the record, most Southern Baptists are not Arminian in the strict sense of that term. What most Southern Baptists believe is something of a middle ground between doctrinaire Calvinism and Arminianism. This is debatable, but arguably modern Baptist can more directly trace their lineage to Calvinist origins, and there is a sizable and active effort within the Southern Baptists Convention to return it to what they see as its Calvinist roots. Hemingway is right that Southern Baptists are by and large pre-mil, although that is changing somewhat as well.
That said, liberals and journalists (sorry I repeat myself) are appallingly ignorant of Christian theology. If Sharon Angle is a practicing Southern Baptist it is almost certain that she is not a Reconstructionist.
But also, I don’t think Christians running screaming from the Reconstructionist label as if it is some sort of slur is helpful either. It is often inaccurately applied, and if it is this should be pointed out. But Reconstructionism is a precise theological term indicating a precise set of theological beliefs. As such it rises and falls solely on whether or not it is a sound interpretation and application of Scripture. It is not wrong because it has a high PC ick factor or because it is somehow inconsistent with the “American way.” It is either a sound interpretation of the Word of God, or it is not.
Also, Christian Reconstructionism is not a matter of “hyper-Calvinism” per se, although all Reconstructionist are Calvinists. Reconstructionists do not necessarily hold to the “five points” more strongly than non-Reconstructionist Calvinists. It is a matter of a difference over a particular application of doctrine.
For the record also, I am neither a Southern Baptist (I am a Baptist), a doctrinaire Calvinist, nor a Reconstructionist. I just hate imprecision, and I hate it when conservatives and Christians dance to the PC tune. “Ewww… I’m not one of those icky kinds of conservatives/Christians.” For Christians, the claims of the Reconstructionists should be supported or countered on the basis of theology alone, not its conformity or lack there of with modernism, the American way, the Constitution or whatever.
Note also that I have made similar arguments with non-interventionist conservatives about dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not wrong because we don’t like where its proponents have run with it regarding foreign policy and the support of Israel. If it is wrong, it is wrong because it is an inaccurate interpretation and application of Scripture, and it should be countered on a theological basis.
Stonewall on 21 Jul 2010 at 9:01 pm #
Excellent post, Red. As you pointed out, most Americans are too theologically ignorant to know what Reconstructionism is all about. If that’s the case, then does this accusation really mean anything in the long run? And even if you ask most Christians about how to define it, you’ll get multiple definitions.
You are correct to point out that the “Christian America” concept does not equal Reconstructionism. There are post-mil tendencies associated with it (think Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans), but having a post-mil eschatology does not equal being a Reconstructionist either. I think that term gets thrown around way too much and is used to paint all kinds of people. I even remember that accusation being thrown at dispensationalists like Pat Robertson which, of course, is a joke.
For about a decade, I’ve really noticed a substantial increase in books and other literature published by the secular Left about the supposed rise of the “Christian Right,” particularly a rise in Reconstructionist sentiments. I remember being an undergrad (2002-06) seeing newly published books sounding the call to oppose this or that “theocratic” movement. I laughed then and I still laugh today. It never ceases to amaze me how people on the Left really believed that the presidency of GWB was some kind of vanguard for a new Christian theocracy.
Bush, a member of the squishy United Methodist Church, was hardly the stereotype of the “Christian President” many on both sides of the spectrum saw him to be. That Bush was ever cast into that light at all shows how disingenuous these accusations are and how they play off the ignorance of the general public. Reconstructionism (or rather, theonomy in general) involves legislating on the basis of Old Testament civil codes, the most notorious being the death penalty for offenses like adultery, sodomy, and the like. I highly doubt Angle really adheres to something like that. Heck, only a handful of Calvinists actually do.
And yes, we ought to defend or reject theological concepts because of what we find in the Scriptures with their self-attesting nature, not whatever the world thinks is acceptable. Christians today have a bad habit of letting the world decide for them what is acceptable. That’s why we have the “seeker-sensitive” movement within Evangelicalism and other garbage. One final observation: modern Evangelicalism (upper-case “E”) is going down the exact same path that mainline Protestants went down almost a century ago. The SBC is the last major battlefield in Evangelicalism where this trend toward liberalism is being resisted, but only slightly.
RedPhillips on 21 Jul 2010 at 9:37 pm #
The SBC has done a valiant job of resisting liberalism in very tightly defined matters of orthodoxy (essentially creedal Christianity and Protestant soteriology), but they have not done a good job of resisting the advance of liberalism as a whole. The problem is that their failure to adequately do the later is going to inevitably decrease their will and ability to continue to do the former. It already has. In an increasingly hostile and secular world, they are going to become more and more squeamish about asserting the distinctive of Christianity. This non-assertion, while not technically abdication, will come to resemble more and more actual liberalism until it becomes actual theological liberalism. Look at the trajectory of the Emerging Church movement. Many have drifted into rank liberalism although it started off as at least an arguably orthodox movement in that it didn’t specifically reject any aspect of orthodoxy.
ShellyBrown on 24 Jul 2010 at 6:39 pm #
you don’t think that conservatives have a vested interest in innoculating ourselves from ridicule? how easy is it to dismiss the lunatic left when you show people the idiots from the wto riots? heck, we can even call them lunatic left just because they’re so ridiculous.
we cannot win if people can turn that same weapon of ridicule back on us. already, the left is winning the battle of imagery by portraying lefties as normal suburban people and yuppies, and turning images of conservatives into idiots carrying signs about kenya missing an idiot. there are bigger stakes here than you think. we had a lot going for us when we could define ourselves as good, reasonable people and the left as the fringe elements.
i’ll be honest, i wince when i hear someone talking about long form birth certificates or how we need to implement old testament law. sure, they’re stupid positions, but you know what else happens? the next time i’m at the office and i’m arguing with people about some very reasonable point like why we need to abolish nato, rather than consider what i’m saying, they’re able to toss aside all my arguments by asking what i’ll do when i’m raptured and both god and tim lahaye tell me barack obama is a naturally born us citizen. it’s not very funny and it’s not very clever, but it’s an incredibly effective means of shutting down an argument by exposing me to pure ridicule.
also, on another note, anyone gullible enough to believe in something as patently stupid as left behind is not an ally i’ll trust – if they’ll buy that today, who knows what they’ll buy tomorrow?
RedPhillips on 24 Jul 2010 at 7:23 pm #
Shelly, you are partially making my point for me. Mature and fair-minded people should agree that ridicule is an immature and unfair debate tactic. But yet the left and the squeamish right use it all the time. For some it is their entire MO. So why do they use it? Because IT WORKS. And it works because WE LET IT. The proper response is not to be intimidated into silence but to tell them to grow up and shame them for their childish tactics.
ShellyBrown on 25 Jul 2010 at 5:58 pm #
redphillips, complaining about ridicule being an unfair tool is laughable. it’s one of *our* most powerful tools. you’re telling me that you’re willing to surrender the tool that keeps liberals having to explain why they’re not the same as the commies protesting the white house and the bomb throwers at the wto – really?
more importantly, whether or not it’s a fair debate tactic, it’s what defines political argument in this country. both sides try to paint themselves as the normal, reasonable people and tie the other side to fringe elements, who can then be mocked. that’s why both sides have a vested interest in keeping their coalitions respectable.
i don’t know about you, but i’m in it to win it. i will do whatever it takes to get my country back, and i want every tool in my arsenal to do so.