What do y’all think about Christian reconstructionism and theonomy?
Does the general equity clause in the LBC and WCF, in contrast to particular equity, allow for a Christian reconstruction view?
A1.) In short, I generally approve of the thesis advanced by Rushdoony, Bahnsen, et. al. Like many reform movements within the church, the character and personality of the men color the various streams of the movement. To that end test all things, hold fast to that which is true. Wisdom is known by her children.
McDurmon is endeavoring to lay a theonomic argument against the spirit of our age in his “The Problem of Slavery in Christian America”. As his father-in-law Gary North is oft to say “you can’t beat something with nothing;” so McDurmon is advancing the Van Tillian framework to explain why the American chattel slave trade was unjust by specifically looking at the legal and cultural framework under the light of Scripture. This he does in my estimation to lay a groundwork for advancing the apologetic for a theonomic response to the aftermath.
A2.) Any reading of leading thinkers in modern CR will reveal that they believe the answer is “yes.” One will note that one difference between the modern CR movement and the Covenanters (past and present) is that the latter see establishmentarianism as linked with theonomy. The former are generally national confessionalists (see Bill Einwechter, et. al.) To that end modern CR is more approachable to our Baptist brethren.
As a Baptist, I appreciate that.
Though modern CR is mostly known through its perspectives on politics and government, Rushdoony consistently framed CR as addressing a much deeper problem – the sins of mankind. Repentance and revival are not just individualistic exercises but also transform the whole of our lives (again applying Van Til).
I have endeavored to carry the Greatest Commandment and the general equity of the law into the political discussion here in my state. Here’s a good summary of how I view the political problem and its roots.