At reader request, we’re now having a look at the teachings of R. J. Rushdoony, whose name is associated with a movement sometimes called Christian Reconstruction. I have never looked into this movement before, though I have been given all manner of negative reports, ranging from accusations that Rushdoony wanted to reinstitute stoning as a death penalty form to charges that he was a racist.
Are any of these charges true? Well, if they are – they didn’t get any verification in the four small books I picked up this past month. In fact, none of the four books contained anything that radical – or a great deal disagreeable to, beyond a rather staunch Calvinism, and some factual errors of a common sort I’ve seen before. (Though admittedly, much of what Rushdoony deals in is also beyond my scope of knowledge.)
How’d it go?
Law and Liberty -- this one’s just a basic apologetic for God as the source of moral law, hardly different from what we might find in C. S. Lewis. There are errors in fact; Rushdoony seems to assume modern romantic love was dominant in the ancient world [106-7], and he finds an idea of private property in the OT (which really doesn’t cohere with the notion of God as owner, and humans as tenants).
Revolt Against Maturity -- again, mostly non-controversial, though at times it was like reading a political book by George Will, not a religious book. Rushdoony makes the odd implication that the Hebrews held to modern ideas of what constituted conscience, though oddly, he is aware that the Greeks and Romans viewed it as external, not internal! His data on the meaning of image-language related to God and man is also in error, though these errors are not so great as to affect his arguments substantially.
God’s Plan for Victory -- an advocacy of postmillennialism and Calvinist predestination. This has some excellent discussion of the “rapture generation” and their indifference to improving things, which we can see paralleled in teachers today as well. There’s only one paragraph at the end that hints at what I have been told in the past to be Christian Reconstruction: “God has a plan for the conquest of all things by His covenant people. That plan is His law. It leaves no area of life and activity untouched, and it predestines victory. To deny the law is to deny God and His plan for victory.” But the details of that “plan” and what we’re supposed to do about it aren’t specified.
Christianity and the State -- this contains a great many political and historical essays, sometimes about obscure topics, and like the rest, is long on description and short on prescription. For example, one chapter favorably describes cities of refuge in the OT, but doesn’t say what we’re supposed to do with it. I was left wondering if Rushdoony was going to advocate setting up cities of refuge in modern times, but it never got as far as “do this.” One sentence does sum up things well [84]: “There can be no separation of religion and the state. The question is simply, which religion will undergird law and society?” He also has some very poignant criticisms of churches and hymns [114] that emphasize experience over doctrine, but also a rather outlandish statement in favor of Calvinism [115]: “Arminianism does not eliminate predestination; it denies it to God, and the state seizes it. Every denial of predestination leads to subordinationism {in Christology).” It does? Not that I can see.
My next task with Rushdoony will be to read two of his larger books -- The Roots of Biblical Reconstruction and Institutes of Biblical Law. It is the latter that I have seen targeted as a racist, bigoted source now and then; whether that is indeed true, I will find out on my own – though based on the above, it would imply that Rushdoony was either a dual personality, or cautious about hiding his prejudices. (For that reason – I’d ask readers not to unduly reveal to me anything they know about Rushdoony...for now.)
Roots of Reconstruction is a much larger behemoth than I expected at glance, having 1123 pages, of which I read half for the this issue. It's also that Rushdoony can be a demanding (not to say uninteresting) read; I can read material by someone like Joyce Meyer one way and not miss much, but if I tried it with Rushdoony, I might miss something crucial.
Which is not to say, radical. I am still looking for any of these allegedly horrible things Rushdoony said or wrote; I was reminded while reading of one atheist who alleged that Christian Reconstructionists wanted to reinstitute OT law, including stoning penalties. I have not seen that, though I have seen some puzzling notions about OT law that I hope will be clarified in further reading (more on this below). In the meantime, it's still been like reading George Will or Rush Limbaugh with a Christian flavor.
I have found much to agree with and material I could have written myself: treatises on self-absorption and selfishness, making God too familiar, education, abortion, economics, elitism, and being not merely a "spectator" in church. That's the bulk of what I have read from Rushdoony: non-controversial, sound, and warranting no comment. Otherwise, there are three negatives so far which I can outline in Rushdoony.
First, there are times when I wish he would be more strict with documentation. Certain claims he makes are presented anecdotally. He is not always remiss in citing sources, but he could have done much better.
Second, Rushdoony has so far been maddeningly devoid of what might be called plans for action. We are told we must make God the ruler in every part of life, and put all things under God's dominion, but we are very seldom told how this ought to be done in the particulars. For example, Rushdoony clearly wants to bring God into the realm of politics. But how does he propose this is to be done? Are we simply to elect Christians to office? Are we to revamp the Republic wholesale? He also favors Christian schools, but aside from disapproving of voucher programs, I have so far found little in the way of specific suggestions or directions concerning how Christian education is to be conducted. Perhaps that can be found in other volumes of his, but if so, referernces to those from him would be appreciated.
Third, there is an oddity in Rushdoony's treatment of OT law. He clearly regards it as to some extent still applicable, but it is never made clear to what extent he thinks this is so, save in case instances. He argues that the laws of tithing and Sabbath observance still adhere, with which I disagree, but for which he makes no substantive case. (Though for the latter, he does argue that observing it affirms our trust in God -- a very pious idea which we see from Chick-Fil-A as well, but hardly any sort of logical argument, as we can affirm trust in God just as readily without it.) He also indicates that various laws having to do with war should still be observed (eg, soldiers could be no younger than 20, as stated in several passages in Numbers), and while one could of course argue the virtues of observing these laws independently, the fact that Rushdoony doesn't justify them as transcending their ANE context does not inspire much confidence.
In one place, he argues that a certain early churchman who later became a heretic, Montanus, should not have become a leader in the church in the first place, because he had been castrated as a priest of Attis, and Lev. 21:17-23 forbids castrated persons in the priesthood. I have my doubts that this law would still be applicable under the new covenant; it was most likely connected to ritual purity, and as Paul so elegantly noted to Peter, we can't still observe that without implying that Christ's sacrifice was not efficacious.
In another place, he refers to as "heretical" the idea that God had one plan of salvation for Jews, and another for Gentiles. But my view is that there is but one plan (loyalty, faith), yet expressed in two covenants.
On the other hand, in discussing one of my favorite OT laws to illustrate atheistic idiocy, Deut. 22:8 (roofs must have parapets), Rushdoony ably explains the purpose of this law in OT social context, and thereby implies that he doesn't think we need to follow it to the letter (though I am sure he would agree with me that it implies as well that we have things like railings on balconies). Later he also correctly understands OT law as "case law". So he certainly does not demand an application of the law with blind legalistic fervor. The question I'd like to see answered is just where he does stand on the spectrum. I can only hope a clear answer will be found in further readings.
Such are my three major reservations. Other than all this, there was a curious irony. Rushdoony praised Franky Schaeffer as one in "excellent continuity with his father's work" and denigrated as hypocrites those who didn't think Franky was up to his fathers' standard. One wonders what Rushdoony would make of Franky now being essentially an apostate.
As in our last installment, my reading of the second half of Rushdoony's Roots of Reconstruction has produced none of the controversy that I would have expected from all the naughty things I have read about him from certain disgruntled sources. There is still no promise to reinstitute stoning as a penalty if Christians get in charge. Nor is there yet anything objectionable in moral terms.
There is also, as yet, still very little in terms of specifics of how Rushdoony sees Christians taking dominion over all aspects of life. He tells us (552), "Christainity has an obligation to train people in the fundamentals of God's grace and law, and to make them active and able champions of true political liberty and order." All right -- how? We're not told; all we have in RR is a strong emphasis on construction of Christian schools, but the means of instruction for "people" at large is not specified. We are told that we should tithe to support reconstruction (608) but other than for schools, if you're looking to be told how to spend it, you won't find it here. We are told we ought to make television a Christrian domain (1102) but not told how either. Buy all the stations with tithe money and replace the programming? Take over the FCC? "The state cannot be neutral towards God." (907), we are told. All right -- so must it be a theocracy? Must all politicians be Christians? I don't wish to seem facetious, but the weight of "do this" that is unbalanced by the lack of a "tell me how" becomes disgruntling after a while, as it leaves far too much to the imagination.
There are also some interesting parallels to today's problems of the church; again I can only imagine how much worse Rushdoony would say things are now. At one point he appears to be taking on (564) an earlier version of the emergent church. Later (582) he refers to churchgoers who "sit under pastors who know less Bible and doctrine than they do" (ouch -- how well I know that). And it is not only pastors (755): he has a few words for Christians who substitute "emotionalism and enthusiasm for discipline and work." He minces no words even for the greates names; he refers to Billy Graham as a compromiser and charges him (689) with adhering to "basic humanism". How can I of all people dislike someone for being this straightforward?
So are there any problems to report? Well, yes. I have noted Rushdoony's sparse documentation at times, and I selected three claims at random to check for validity.
(570) He reports that two Nigerian personalities, Sir Ahmado Bello and Sir Abubaker, on January 15, 1965, were eaten by cannibals at a state dinner. This doesn't check out at all; Bello's death was one year later (January 15, 1966) and he was murdered in a coup. I can find no indication that his body was consumed by cannibals. Abubaker was killed in the same coup, and it appears that his corpse was found by a roadside and put in a tomb, not eaten.
(589) He reports that on January 31, 1967, Lois Murgenstrumm was used as a living altar in a Satanist wedding. This claim is repeated without documentation in some sources of questionable reliability. Perhaps it simply is too old to be on the radar today, but it smells suspicious.
(1021) He says that a Declaration of Mental Independence was delivered in 1825, by one Robert Owen, founder of a sort of humanist colony. He also reports a visitor to the colony, Gabriel Rey, who saw a mired horse that was left to die. On this one the year is repeated differently in different sources (one said 1826, another 1829) but it does appear that Owen did deliver such an address. On the other hand, I cannot find any confirmation of the Rey aspect of the story.
So what does that leave us? It's not certain, especially since the book gives no source for these claims. They may seem trivial as claims, but they do raise questions in my mind about how reliable Rushdoony's research may be.
Although a monster of a book, Institutes of Biblical law (IBL) is a much less demanding read than his prior works we evaluated, and I was able to finish all of it (save some 100 pages written by Gary North, which I consider outside our scope).
As before, though, the major reservation about what Rushdoony offers is not what he says, but what he does not say. IBL is a comprehensive and overall worthy evaluation of the Ten Commandments and their meaning, followed by a few chapters of commentary; in all of this I found very little disagreeable or in detectable error within my purview. But as before, Rushdoony says little to nothing about to what extent, and in what way, the law of the OT ought to be applied to today. I have seen Rushdoony accused by atheists of wanting to re-institute stoning as a punishment. Though Rushdoony does support capital punishment, I saw no direct statement of the means to be used in IBL, but I can see why someone might argue such a thing of Rushdoony: His adamance about imposing Biblical law does not, where I have found so far (obviously, he may do so in yet some other work not available to me), doesn't often take the step of explaining depth and mode of application, and sometimes leaves it unclear what he supposes application ought to be.
One of the few cases where Rushdoony is explicit on such matters is in regards to such things as the Sabbath observance and various forms of dress (Num. 15:38), which he sees as "superseded by the signs of the new covenant" like baptism and circumcision. But this is the exception rather than the rule. There are several cases where Rushdoony compares modern judicial malpractice to Biblical law, obviously (and often rightly) criticizing the former for its inadequacies, but he never explicitly states (at least not in IBL) something like, "The modern judicial system needs to adopt this biblical law to this or that extent." Given Rushdoony's boldness otherwise, I cannot help but ask why not. The closest we come to a specific program is this: "The education which breeds Amalekites [Rushdoony's designation for enemies of God in this part of the book) must be replaced with Christian education....The state must become Christian and apply Biblical law to every area of life, and apply the full measure of God's law. The permissive family must give way to the Christian family." [323] It's bold, it's broad, and it's thoroughly lacking in specifics.
I need not make much of places where Rushdoony and I disagree theologically or exegetically. I find his treatments and views on matters like Calvinism, tithing, and a few other points to be wrong, but I could say the same of any other writer in terms of finding things to disagree with. Perhaps his oddest arguments are his attempts to link profanity (even when it does not mention God) to Biblical prohibitions against swearing (in the sense of oaths -- 109); and his attempts to argue that the prohibition on tattoos applies as well today (223); his argument that the law against Lev. 19:19 forbids the production of modern genetic hybrids becuse hybrids are sterile and cannot reproduce (255 -- and later says that hybridization leads to "futile experimentation, such as organ transplants" [!]-- 262 ). In these Rushdoony goes much farther than the texts and their contexts allow. I also find to be strained Rushdoony's argument that the Deuteronomic covenant "circumscribes all men without exception" [655] and is in some way a continued in the New Testament covenant, though this is more of a legalist technicality if one recognizes that principles inherent in the law will be a basis for judgement anyway; it need not be doubted that disobedience will still lead to judgment, as he says further.
That said, Rushdoony also offers a number of judicious insights, and makes it quite clear that he thinks that while certain deails of OT law are not applicable to our times, it is the principles that matter today -- a position we agree with [293; and, 301, where Rushdoony discusses the dietary laws and deems them applicable not in detail, but in principle; though he adheres to a questionable view that the laws had some relevance to health]. So arguably the above oddities are cases in which he took false steps regarding what were details and what were principles. That being so I turn now to other criticisms from other sources,
One reader asked me to be particularly on the lookout for any place where Rushdoony implied that Christians were bound to pursue holy war, as it were, against the heathen. Up til now I found nothing of the sort, but at IBL 93 there is an expression that comes tantalizingly (if again, incompletely) close. Speaking of Israel's war against Canaan, Rushdoony remarks: "In brief, every law-order is a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare....Law is a state of war." In between the ellipsis he makes clear that penalties are made in accord with severity of an offense. But in light of his declarations concerning Christians asserting Jesus' Lordship over all creation, the reader may rightly wonder how far Rushdoony supposes this should go. Are we called to be Crusaders? Is it the responsility of Christians to get themselves into public office, impose Biblical law, invade foreign countries that are not Christian and impose the same rule there? Rushdoony and the Reconstruction movement have been accused of this by critics I have encountered over the years, and while I have yet to see explicit statements where they demand this (they may be apparent in other writings!) I can see why someone might reach that conclusion.
Another such statement is found at IBL 308. Rushdoony uses the image of the Amalekites to illustrate evil and disorder in the world, and says, "...the covenant people must wage war against the enemies of God, because this war is unto death. The deliberate, refined, and obscene violence of the anti-God forces permits no quarter...this warfare must continue until the Amalekites of the world are blotted out, until God's law-order prevails and His justice reigns." A little later Rushdoony also makes it clear that evangelism is part of this program. [321] But does he mean the war imagery literally? if so, to what extent? It is not made clear.
So now for a closing commentary, which reflects one significant purpose of this examination. One of the things I was on the lookout for was what was related in a rather heated blog entry by a Skeptic, in which it became clear that the lack of clarity I noted was indeed being taken, in many cases, to enable an interpretation beyond what was explicitly said. Some of the more offensive quotes offered were in sources not available to me, and so could not be checked. Others were indeed found in the sources, such as one in IBL: “"inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish." – which a defender of Rushdoony tried to explain as being a misunderstanding of how Rushdoony defined “race” (the explanation seemed rather contrived, though). Others were not. For example, these quotes were said to be from IBL, though no page number was given:
The move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro, materially and spiritually.
Lazy slaves were “an albatross that hung the South, that bled it.”
The University of Timbuktu never existed. The only thing that existed in Timbuktu was a small mud hut.
The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany (i.e., the death camps) is especially notable and revealing…. the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 ....very many of these people died of epidemics.
This has become especially important now as apparently one of our Republican Presidential candidates (Bachmann) has declared Rushdoony an influence, and some of these quotes are being plastered all over the Internet. I saw none of these above in reading IBL, however; indeed I saw no chapter where they would have been contextually appropriate to the contents. It also happens that IBL is searchable on Google Books, and none of these quotes turned up. I have a past record of discovering bogus quotes, so I am naturally suspicious when this sort of thing happens. If critics wish to identify Rushdoony as a racist, or an anti-Semite, they will have to provide more definitive verification than this.
One quote that did turn up genuine, on page 203, was as follows:
The matriarchal society is thus decadent and broken... matriarchal character of Negro life is due to the moral failure of Negro men, their failure ...to provide authority. The same is true of American Indian tribes which are also matriarchal.
The ellipsis, however, obscure some additional words, and the quote is not exact; for the sake of completeness:
The matriarchal society is thus the decadent and broken. The strongly matriarchal character of Negro life is due to the moral failure of Negro men, their failure to be responsible, to support the family, or to provide authority. The same is true of American Indian tribes which are also matriarchal today.
Are these the words of a racist? Perhaps, for they can easily be envisioned as being so used. On the other hand, having read a good deal of literature by African-American commentators, and having spoken to many African-American men who were prison inmates, I have found similar sentiments expressed therein about the failures of African-American men to be responsible as well. Just offhand, for example, Black Families by Harriette Pipes McAdoo reports that findings matching those described by Rushdoony were found in the words of serious scholars of the late 60s and early 70s -- at the time when IBL was published (while also noting disagreement on those findings). Were all those authors racist? Or, could an scholarly author's poignant (if arguably incorrect) social commentary be Rushdoony's racist claptrap? Conceivably, yes. But by itself, that isn't clear.
Suffice to say that there are enough genuine quotes of this type to be suspicious of Rushdoony, given how often he does not qualify or explain himself, but also enough quotes of this sort that I did not find that one may be suspicious of the critics as well. Were some of these quotes just made up? Or do we have sanitized versions of IBL on the market? Without more documentation, or reaching into sources not available to me, it is impossible to say.
The critics are also adamant that other Reconstructionist authors (like Gary North) offer even more explicit statements about such things as re-instituting stoning. We may well investigate these claims. In close for this series on Rushdoony, I can only say that at the very least, his reticence indicates a warrant of due caution for anyone who appeals to his work as authoritative.