I remember sitting down to read The Reduction of Christianity (DeMar & Leithart) in order to finally decide what Christian Reconstructionism was, and whether or not I agreed/disagreed with some/all of what the movement teaches. I was very optimistic about this, since I had heard that this was a clear introduction. But as I kept reading (and reading) I only became more and more confused about what Christian Reconstruction was. I was halfway through the book, and I still had no idea what it was. So I back-tracked to Let's Define Our Terms, read it over a couple more times, and finally centered on:

In particular, reconstructionists believe in the sovereignty of God as it relates to personal salvation and the created order, hold to the old Puritan belief in the continuing significance of the Old Testament case laws and a victorious view of the future progress of the kingdom of God, and advocate the presuppositional apologetic methodology and philosophy of the late Cornelius Van Til (who was not a "reconstructionist"). (pp. 31-32)

I couldn't get it. I was reading what Christian Reconstructionists believed, but I still had no idea what they believed. Except for the presuppositional philosophy (which I was unfamiliar with), I thought every Christian held these views. Depending on how these were understood, every Christian could affirm them. There was still nothing distinctive. The question was, how did Christian Reconstructionists understand these statements? What was distinctive about the Christian Reconstructionist view? What was different about how Christian Reconstructionists understood these statements, and how I did?

Eventually I realized I was never going to understand what Christian Reconstructionists believed by reading this book. The bible was simply being reconstructed according to the Reconstructionist worldview. Still, one would think that all this could have been found out much sooner. It is more difficult than one might imagine for the following two reasons: The first is the systematic misrepresentation of what Christians believe, and the second is the failure of Reconstructionists to frankly admit (and in some cases, understand) their own position.

In reading the Reduction of Christianity, I found the misrepresentations of classical Christianity so comprehensive, that most of the time I simply didn't know what the authors were talking about. For example, the continuous accusation that nonReconstructionists don't put the bible into practice in every area of life. Christians are accused of only practicing a 'heart' religion, while Reconstructionists apply the bible to every area of their lives. Of course, this is patently false. Christians apply the bible to every area of life, but they understand this to mean something different from what Reconstructionists do. A similar distortion is as the title of the book suggests, that Christians have reduced the gospel, to some kind of interiority, or self-centered personal piety, whereas Reconstructionists preach a 'full' gospel. Again, simply factually dishonest and false. Most Christians simply believe the biblical, Reformed position that good government is a common grace, and that Christians have no mandate to take dominion of the world, and therefore do not take a Christian Reconstructionist approach to social problems. But Christians always have and always will make immense positive contributions to political and social problems.

The second problem is the widespread failure of Reconstructionists to frankly admit their position. For example, asked to define Christian Reconstructionism on the television show Sound Off (January 4, 1991), Gary DeMar states:   The definition of Christian Reconstruction is simply this: that the Bible applies to every facet of life.

What an awful, deliberate ambiguity! If this is all they are teaching, then isn't every Christian already a Reconstructionist? Amazingly, some Christian Reconstructionists actually argue this! So again, there is a complete failure to identify what is distinctive about Christian Reconstruction. And the reason for this is clear. When most Christians understand what the key doctrines of Christian Reconstructionism are, they reject it. Why? Because it is completely unscriptural

Because of the failure of Christian Reconstructionists to frankly admit their own position, there have been a truly amazing number of definitions and explanations of what Christian Reconstruction is. One of the saddest, was Robert M. Bowman Jr.'s article on behalf of the Christian Research Institute, that has and will decide the issue for the many Christians who rely on this journal to receive accurate information on new religious movements. There was a total failure on the part of Mr. Bowman to either understand or critique the basic dogmas of Christian Reconstruction. Although he finds Christian Reconstructionism to be orthodox, he warns of some potential dangers, especially: "More serious is the intermingling of reconstructionists with proponents of the "dominion theology" which is now sweeping the charismatic and Pentecostal churches." Obviously, he didn't do his homework. Dominion Theology is absolutely integral to Christian Reconstructionism. Christian Reconstructionists are Dominionists. There is no possibility of Christian Reconstruction being influenced by Dominion Theology, it is Dominion Theology.  (In all fairness to Mr. Bowman, he did later write a second article challenging the unbiblical nature of the dominion mandate, but without reassessing his original conclusions).

This leads us to the second great error in characterizing Christian Reconstruction: confusing the movement's self-categorizations for the fundamental tenets that define Christian Reconstructionism. These 'distinctives' have been popularized as: theonomy, or a belief in the continuing validity of the Old Testament law (the two are actually completely distinct); postmillennialism; presuppositionalism; and Calvinism. This tendency is common even among scholars interacting with the movement. J. Ligon Duncan, III, in his paper: Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, writes: "Opponents of Reconstruction have generally failed to identify what is truly distinctive about its position, preferring (uncharitably) to caricature it rather than define it." The high calling of his own paper then, is: "First, we will explain specifically what Christian Reconstruction is." The paper does indeed give a good flavor of what Christian Reconstructionism is (echoing many of the movement's catchphrases), but is plagued by a terrible confusion between Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. Reconstruction is defined within the movement's ambiguous self-definitions. As is typically the case, there is no discussion of the absolutely integral component of Dominion Theology. Instead, there is a section entitled 'Transformational Worldview'. While a 'transformational worldview' is of course an aspect of Dominion Theology, the concept of dominion in Christian Reconstruction also goes well beyond this. Section D, Highlights of the Theological Justification of Theonomic Ethics, contains a balanced criticism of Theonomy.

It is truly amazing how many critics of Christian Reconstruction ignore the writings (or at least demonstrate no acquaintance with them) of its founding father, Dr. Rousas Rushdoony. This, to me, is what enables there to be so much confusion about what Christian Reconstruction is, even among people who think they are Christian Reconstructionists! Many people who believe they are Christian Reconstructionists are actually much closer to Theonomy, but are genuinely confused about Christian Reconstructionism because of the deliberate obscurities and religio-political jockeying of the movement's leaders. Reading Dr. Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law is a good way to get behind all this, since here the ideas are still formulated simply and directly, without the later makeovers and terrible distortions essential to the popularization of the movement. The foundational tenets of Christian Reconstruction are the following:

The Foundational Doctrines of Christian Reconstructionism

1. "God's covenant with Adam required him to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it (Gen. 1:26 ff) under God according to God's law-word."

2. "The restoration of that covenant relationship was the work of Christ, His grace to His elect people."

3. "The fulfillment of that covenant is their great commission: to subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His law-word." [1]

As soon as a person clearly comprehends these three doctrines, all the why's and wherefore's of Christian Reconstruction's teachings become transparent, from the rise of Dr. Bahnsen's 'Theonomy' thesis to the denial of the imminent return of Jesus. 

The following elaborations by Dr. Rushdoony should perfectly clarify the Christian Reconstructionist position (all emphases in original):

"God called Adam to exercise dominion in terms of God's revelation, God's law (Gen. 1:26 ff.; 2:15-17). This same calling, after the fall, was required of the godly line, and in Noah it was formally renewed (Gen. 9:1-17). It was again renewed with Abraham, with Jacob, with Israel in the person of Moses, with Joshua, David, Solomon (whose Proverbs echo the law), with Hezekiah and Josiah, and finally with Jesus Christ. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the renewal of the covenant: "this is my blood of the new testament" (or covenant), so that the sacrament itself re-establishes the law, this time with a new elect group (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; I Cor 11:25). The people of the law are now the people of Christ, the believers redeemed by His atoning blood and called by His sovereign election. [Quotes Meredith Kline] The purpose of God in requiring Adam to exercise dominion over the earth remains His continuing covenant word: man, created in God's image and commanded to subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it in God's name, is recalled to this task and privilege by his redemption and regeneration."

The law is therefore the law for Christian man and Christian society. Nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have. [2]

Finally:

"God, in creating man, ordered him to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28). Man, in attempting to establish separate dominion and autonomous jurisdiction over the earth (Gen. 3:5), fell into sin and death. God, in order to re-establish the Kingdom of God, called Abraham, and then Israel, to be His people, to subdue the earth, and to exercise dominion under God. The law, as given through Moses, established the laws of godly society, of true development for man under God, and the prophets repeatedly called Israel to this purpose.

"The purpose of Christ's coming was in terms of this same creation mandate. Christ as the new Adam (I Cor. 15:45) kept the law perfectly. As the sin-bearer of the elect, Christ died to make atonement for their sins, to restore them to their position of righteousness under God. The redeemed are recalled to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfill "the righteousness of the law" (Rom 8:4). The law remains central to God's purpose. Man has been re-established into God's original purpose and calling. Man's justification is by the grace of God in Jesus Christ; man's sanctification is by means of the law of God.

"As the new chosen people of God, the Christians are commanded to do that which Adam in Eden, and Israel in Canaan, failed to do. One and the same covenant, under differing administrations, still prevails. Man is summoned to create the society God requires. "[3]

1. R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 14.

2. Ibid., pp. 8-9.

3. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

RETURN TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM COALITION HOME PAGE