At one point in time I had quoted Francis Schaeffer concerning this topic.  I would like to give the whole passage from which I pulled my quote.  If you don't know who Francis Schaeffer was, wikipedia says he was "an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor."

This is what he wrote.  Good stuff:

"Not all the individual men who laid down the foundation for the United States Constitution were Christians; many, in fact, were deists.  But we should realize that the word Christian can legitimately be used two ways.  The primary meaning is: an individual who has come to God through the work of Christ.  The second meaning must be kept distinct but also has validity.  It is possible for an individual to live within the circle of that which a Christian consensus brings forth, even though he himself is not a Christian in the first sense.  This may be true in many areas--for example, in the arts or political thought.  Many of the men who laid the foundation of the United States Constitution were not Christians in the first sense, and yet they built upon the basis of the Reformation either directly through the Lex Rex [Law is King] tradition or indirectly through Locke.  To whatever degree a society allows the teaching of the Bible to bring forth its natural conclusions, it is able to have form and freedom in society and government."  (Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?)

Isaiah 3:12 I Timothy 2:11-15 I Corinthians 11:1-3 Ephesians 5:22-24 B8

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?

We should drop the labels. If you would like to have a point by point discussion, I can show you (again) from the Word of God, that the sovereignty of God is true in all of life, that the Word of God is the only standard for all of life in every sphere of existence and that Jesus Christ will not lose in history before His return. Meredith Kline's weak, fallacious and ugly treatment of the entire issue is well-summarized and aptly cast aside as mostly epistemological fodder in the following articles that most American Christians will not have the time, vocabulary or unction to read: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe043.htm http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe041.htm Respectfully, B8

No, you don't have to show me (again).  I know your wrong! 

B8, my circles are humbler by far.  Do we need the vocabulary or unction?  I was visited this evening by a family at church who life has given them some terrible blows.  More than likely they are filing bankrupcy on Monday.  Joe and I have sat down with them and worked on budgeting, priorities, and the like.  However, they have just become new Christians, and the decisions they have made in the past are now catching up to them.  And lifestyle changes are sometimes the hardest.  He is a union ironworker and she cleans houses (occassionally offices).  Then I get online after they leave and see your post.  I chuckled.  Epistemological ... my goodness.  Can you say endocrinologist?  (that last comment is an inside joke for Joe)

Would you not agree that the academics in the Bible had more trouble with Jesus compared to the everyday man?

 Well, I've read almost half of it so far, it is pretty long. You mean that you think theonomy is defunct, or what?

I'm sorry to hear that. We have just finished a DVD series called Financial Freedom by Jim Sammons. I would HIGHLY recommend it! (emphasis added)... LOL! I thought it was really good. I've heard a lot of things about finances, but nothing quite like he had to say.

First, I clicked on the link and noted that it was written by Greg Bahnsen. I then clicked the little "x" on the tab and disregarded. The Christian Reconstructionism movement began in 1973. And, just like the Dispensationalism movement that began in the 1800s, I reject both as new inventions of men. Thank you for trying to force the subject, but I care very little about it.

Second, concerning our conversation with Justin (JT400), we talked about the definition of Christianity at the dinner table on Sunday. I'm not sure of your age, but I wanted to know if my 12-year old son could define "Christianity". He said he'd think about it and get back to me. About 10 minutes into the discussion, without any prompting at all and without leaving the table to go find an answer, he said he was ready. He said, "Christians are people who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and obey his commandments." To this we all answered, "Bingo!"

So, would you agree with the statement? While your statement about the truthfulness of the Bible and whether or not it is from God is good, I believe that definining Christians as followers of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God, the agent of creation and with equality to God the Father and the Holy Spirit -- is better because there are many groups that will tell you that the Bible is God's Word, but will deny the deity and Lordship of Jesus (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International [link - see "Nature of Jesus Christ"], Christadelphians [link] and Unitarians).

Again, do you agree?

See the combined post.  I think it would be wise to continue the conversation there!