Time to put on the thinking hat. Christian Reconstructionism is built on three primary views: Calvinism, theonomy, and post-millennialism. Even if a Christian does not share all three primary views, he will find himself agreeing with many of the conclusions of the Christian Reconstructionalist (CR). The reason for the agreement comes from the fact that Calvinism, theonomy, as well as post-millennialism are all theories built on substantial passages within the Bible. Yet, I find myself uneasy with many of the conclusions drawn from the Christian Reconstructionalists views. Actually, I find large disagreements in all three of the primary views. Therefore, in my mind the view is built on weak pillars. Nevertheless ...
Before proceeding and for the readers’ further investigation, the names that stick out in this movement are not really that well known but are central to this view: R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, and Kenneth Gentry.
While many Christians do not agree with all three primary views of the (CR), many times the Christian community finds themselves influenced by the thoughts of this movement. Take for example the common view that the church has replaced the nation of Israel. If we add this in with the view that the United States was primarily a Christian nation at its unification, we can then take the thought that the US, which was/is a Christian nation, now takes on the role as the “city on the hill,” “God’s People,” or the like. Therefore, we as the church should reclaim the US. And while all the CRs may not believe the US needs reclaiming since it may not truly have been claimed at its construction, they are glad to stand beside these individuals because with them they can now claim the US. And by putting the US under the Law of God (which in itself is definitely not a bad idea), they fulfill the need to have a theonomy and usher in their post-millennial view. Yet in the end, they are trying to revitalize the Massachusetts Bay Colony model for the whole US. This model did have an impact on the United States (good attributes as well as bad). But in the end this model failed as well.
But what if the US is not really a Christian nation? What if our view on the 'People of God' is skewed?
So, as a Christian community should we encourage this line of thought? Well Dr. Meredith Kline, who came from Westminster Theological Seminary and a little too reformed for me does make some good points in his paper: http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Kline_on_Theonomy.html. If you don’t have time to read it, the overall thought is that Reconstructionalist makes the mistake of failing to understand the special prophetic role of Biblical Israel, including the laws and sanctions, therefore, Kline calling the view ‘a delusive and grotesque perversion of the teachings of scripture.’It appears his rogue student, Lee Irons makes an interesting comment as well: “According to the Reformed theocrats apparently … the only satisfactory goal is that America become a Christian nation. Ironically ... it is the wholesale rejection (not revival) of theocratic principles that is desperately needed today if the church is to be faithful to the task of gospel witness entrusted to her in the present age … It is only as the church … puts aside the lust for worldly influence and power - that she will be a positive presence in society.”Now let us quickly look at the passages B8 points out. First, I am guessing the major point alluding to by B8 in Isaiah 3:12 is the fact the women rule over them. The question is who are God’s people and in what respect can we apply this to the United States? Is this verse really a dictate verse or more descriptive? Concerning the other passages, Paul and Timothy were leaders of God’s People, the assembly of God, the church. Can we really apply these passages to civil law?