View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/21/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/6
W ND LOVE
Constructive criticism for Reconstructionists
JNTRODUCTION
What is this article about, and why
it need to be written? The Recon
in great need of
I
I am writing because I do not know
any criticism of the movement, in
tructionists are criticized where they
re strongest, i.e. where they are right.
An example of the former would be
ome of the false impressions created
ent in Christianity Today. The wnter,
ac-
uainted with the literature
of
the move
ent, and it showed.
n example of the latter would be
ne
of
the criticisms leveled by the anti
ew Age author, Dave Hunt. Because
the eschatology
of
the Reconstruction
ists is optimistic, Dave Hunt considers
them to have dangerous New Age ten
dencies. Now it is true that both move
ments are optimistic about the future,
and want their world view to pervade
the whole earth. But to criticize theRe-
constructionists on this basis is like
comparing the Allies to the Nazis be
cause they both wanted control of
rance.
Mr. Hunt's criticism fails because he
attempts to attack the Reconstruction
ists at their strongest point, i.e.
the rele-
ance o the Bible in history.
I am writing as someone who has a
Is a pastor of Community
In Moscow, Ida
MA
In philosophy from
Is active
In
by Doug Wilson
Reconstruction movement. Some
points
of
agreement
are:
1
I believe that the Kingdom of God
will grow until the earth is
as
full of
the knowledge of the Lord as the waters
cover the sea. Then Jesus will return
and destroy that last enemy, Death.
2. I believe that all knowledge must
begin with the Word of God. Rather
than protect our faith with our reason,
we must defend our reason with our
faith.
3 I believe that the Old Testament is
still a clear statement of the mind of
God. The New Testament must govern
how we apply
t
to our lives, but it
must nevertheless be applied--to our
lives, churches, nations and families.
But unfortunately, this agreement
does not extend to other areas. It is also
unfortunate that the points of disagree
ment are not trivial or secondary. As a
pastor, I am dismayed that I can recom
mend few Reconstructionist books for
the people to whom I minister. This is
because the reader may be tempted to
reject everything that is said, including
that which is worthwhile, because
of
those elements which are clearly offen
sive to God. Either that, or he may ac
cept that which is offensive, and fall
short of the attitude God requires
of
Christians. Neither option is accept
able. The silver that can be mined from
Reconstructionist literature requires the
removal
of
a great amount of dross.
This article is based on three basic
objections to the movement. They are:
1
Mr. Gary North (along with some
others) exhibits in his writing a churl
ish disposition that is not in keeping
with our high calling as Christians. In
addition, many Reconstructionist au
thors who do not exhibit this attitude
do not distance themselves from those
who do.
2. Mr. Gary North exhibits in his
writing an utter lack of humility in
evaluating how God will use the publi
cations with which he is associated.
Again, other Reconstructionists allow
this attitude to continue unchecked.
3. The exegetical methodology adop
ted by Mr. James Jordan is one which
will prove destructive in any serious at
tempt to restore a biblical foundation
for our society. Other Reconstruction
ists, while not as adept at this methodo
logy as he, nevertheless seem to be
comfortable with it.
In writing, I have assumed that the
reader is familiar with the basic litera
ture
of
the Reconstruction movement.
What I say here is directed principally at
the Tyler branch of Reconstructionism,
but some of the criticism also applies
elsewhere. The reader is encouraged to
make application anywhere application
is appropriate.
TH GIFT FOR CONTROVERSY
When Apollos wanted to go to
Achaiah, the brothers encouraged him
and wrote to the disciples there to wel
come him. On arriving, he was a great
help to those who by grace had be
lieved.
For
he vigorously refuted the
Jews in public debate, proving from the
Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ
(Acts 18:27-28).
The Church
of
Jesus Christ was born
in controversy, and
it
has been sur
rounded with controversy ever since.
God has consequently blessed His peo
ple from the beginning with gifted con
troversialists. Apollos was one
of
the
first.
This is not something that was in
tended to be unique to the first century.
Paul requires that the elder must hold
firmly to the trustworthy message as it
has been taught, so that he can en
courage others by sound doctrine and
refute those who oppose it
(Titus 1:9).
It is very clear that God does not
intend for Christian leaders to roll over
and play dead in the presence
of
false
teachers. Refutation is frequently neces
sary. But
it
is very important to remem
ber that
God
not only appoints our
tasks, He appoints the way in which
they are to be done.
In Col. 4:6, Paul says, Let your con-
-
P ag e
7
7/21/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/6
versation
be
always full
of
grace, sea
soned with salt, so that you may know
how to answer everyone. In 1 Peter
3:15b-16, we are instructed, Always be
prepared to give an answer to everyone
who asks you to give the reason for the
hope that you have.
But
do this with
gentleness and respect, keeping a clear
conscience,
so
that those who speak
maliciously against your good behavior
in Christ may
be
ashamed
of
their slan
der.
The language of a Christian contro
versialist
must be
vigorous, clear and
strong.
It must
also be loving. The
balance must
be set
by the teaching
of
Scripture.
Many Christians believe that the
Bible prohibits the use
of
strong
or
vigorous' language during verbal con
troversies. This mistake is the result
of
failing to understand Scripture in the
light of Scripture. When we see that the
men who wrote the Bible instructed us
to
speak in a certain way, it would be
wise to look for examples
o their
speech. How did they understand their
own instructions? This will prevent us
from reading our own definitions into
their requirements.
For example: In Luke 4, we find the
account of Jesus speaking at the syna
gogue in his home town of Nazareth.
Verse
22
states that the people were
amazed at the
gracious words
that came
from his lips. Jesus continues to speak
and six verses later the people are
so
furious with him that they attempt to
murder him.
What
is going on?
In Galatians 5:14-15 Paul says, The
entire law is summed up
in
a single
command: 'Love your neighbor as your
self.' If you keep on biting and devour
ing each other, watch out
or
you will
be destroyed by each other. This is a
mere three verses after Paul had. ex
pressed the wish that the members of
the circumcision party would go the
whole way and emasculate themselves.
John records a wonderful invitation
to anyone
who wants
to
come to full
and free forgiveness. Whoever is thirs
ty, let him come; and whoever wishes,
let
him
take the free gift
of
the water
of
life (Revelation 22:17b). Two verses
earlier he had referred to a certain class
of
sinners as dogs (possibly a refer
ence to homosexual offenders. See Deut
eronomy 23:18)
This leaves us with two choices.
Either the verses on gracious speech
mean what most Christians think they
do and the writers of these instructions
were obviously inconsistent, or there is
only
apparent
inconsistency because our
defmitions of graciousness are not in
line with examples given
in
the Bible.
t
is very easy to compromise in the
name of graciousness. t is very easy to
think that the Lord requires us to offend
no one.
t
is very easy to believe that to
identify a brook
of
vipers is ungodly.
Why so easy? Because it is the path of
least resistance.
Our Lord did
not
die and come back
from death victorious in order to popu
late eternity with invertebrates.
We
are
told that gentleness is part of the fruit
of the Spirit. But we are not told that
gentleness requires us to be milque
toasts. We are told the meek will in
herit the earth.
But
we are
not
instructed
to abdicate all strength. Rather, we are
told to
....
e strong in the Lord and
in His mighty power (Ephesians
6:10).
This is not a matter of incidental con
cern. One
of
the major problems in the
modern church is the identification
of
strength with sin. As a consequence,
the church is now like Samson, blinded
and shorn of strength. Repentance is in
order.
We
need
to
give up our human
istic definitions of love and gracious
ness in order to embrace a more biblical
understanding.
But it should go without saying that
this
does not mean
that Christian lead
ers are provided with a justification for
calling people names indiscriminately.
We
must imitate the writers
of
the
Bible across the board.
We must love as
they did, think as they did, give our
selves away as they did,
and then
speak
as they did.
Just as
it
is possible to compromise
the truth for the sake of graciousness, i t
is also possible to e ungracious in the
name of no compromise. Not only is
this the case, but people in the no
compromise camp use the error of the
opposition to justify what they do, and
how they speak. It is this truth-oriented
ungraciousness which is the
single
most tolerated sin
by
Reconstruction-
isis.
And this is the first problem
which must be addressed.
LET YOUR GENTLENESS
BE EVIDENT TO ALL
It
is the opinion
of
this writer that
Gary North has shelled humanistic
thinkers (inside the church and out)
with a biblically based warhead -- de
livered with a humanistic missile.
But
it
is not enough to destroy the
positions of the enemy. t
must be done
the way God said
to do
it.
Gary North
is quite capable of letting the Amale
kites have it. They are beaten: What
then is this bleating of sheep in my
ears? What is this lowing
of
cattle that
I hear
(1
Sam. 15:14)? Saul fought the
enemies
of
God, but he did not do
it
the
way he was instructed.
The Apostle Paul says, with tears,
that some are enemies of the cross
of
Christ. Gary North gleefully says that
Ronald Sider
is
dead meat.
Jesus Christ prophesied that Jerusa
lem would fall at the hands of the
Romans, and he wept over that same
city. He engaged in a vigorous polemic
against the leaders
of Judaism. But. the
polemic was directed against men for
whom He was willing
to
die.
Gary North, in a newsletter
sponding to Rodney Clapp's article,
said, We're far more concerned about
the cultural impact of AIDS than the
cultural impact
of
Clapp. Gary North
knows his Bible well, but one thing
has escaped
him
the
ton .
The problem reminds me
of
an .
incident in the life of Mark Twain. One
day, when his wife had had her fill
of
his profane language, she decided to
shock him by imitating him. After she
had recited all his profanities in his
presence, he calmly informed her that
she knew the words but she didn't know
the tune.
In a similar way, Gary North seems
to know that the Bible requires that
sin,.
be strongly rebuked
And
this he
does,.
but he doesn t know the tune.
Would Paul say that Alexander's
mother swam after troop ships? Would
a ~ e
18
______ .....,______________== The
CouiiSel
of Chalcedon, April-May,
1988
7/21/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/6
I
~ E . ~ o ~
.)I.JbfroN'\ ~ \ \
n \ ~
~ f f i
#
was
a son of a
bitch? No? The Bible requires that sin
ners be confronted. But it does not there
fore follow that any confrontation is
automatically biblical.
In his essay "Confrontation With Bur
eaucracy," Mr. North concludes an other
wise admirable paragraph with a strange
version of Christian exhortation
--
"Sue
the bastards "2
Confronted with this, Gary North
could no doubt reply that the in
dividuals to whom he
was
referring
were not legitimate sons of God, and
were in fact bastards. Fine. True
enough. But this just demonstrates
further
his
difficulty in carrying a
biblical tune -- and also demonstrates
that he may in fact be tone deaf.
I do not say this because I disagree
with Gary North (although I frequently
do ,
but because it
is an embarrassment
t
agree with him.
And because Gary
North
has
a good theological mind, it
is
not uncommon for Christians to find
themselves in frequent agreement with
the content of what he says. They
therefore find themselves frequently
embarrassed
by the way
he
carries on.
The issue is not whether humanists
like being skewered. Of course they do
not. The issue is whether God has in-
structed us to oppose them in this way.
The answer is that He has not
--
quite
the reverse.
"CONSIDER OTIIERS
BETTER
TH N
YOURSELVES"
n
the Publisher's Preface to
That
You May Prosper 3
Gary North goes
out of
his
way to predict that this book
will prove to be the most important
book of theology published for cen
turies. He does not do this
in
the nor
mal manner of publishers who want to
hype the product. He lists a number of
authors (including Luther, Augustine
and Bunyan) who will not have the im
pact on history that Ray Sutton, the
author of the book, will have.
The suspicion arises that
if
any mile
stones are being passed, they are mile
stones of publishing exuberance. The
problem is not the book, the problem
is the arrogant crowing about the book.
In this regard, the ungodly King Ahab
appears to have had the greater part of
wisdom
--
"Let not him who puts on
his armor boast like him who takes it
off' (1 Kings 20: 11
.
Gary North writes, "Of the forgetting
of books there is no end. There will be
an exception to this general rule, I
believe:
That You May Prosper.
The
outline of this book will shape the
thinking
of
Christians from this day
forward."4 Well, maybe. But why can't
we wait, as though humility were a
virtue, and see? Why is it necessary to
sneer at Bunyan, or loftily compare
your own publishing efforts with some
of the theological giants that have
preceded us?
This is not to say that there should
be no disagreement with Christian
writers
of
previous centuries.
t is
just
the contention that all Christian debate
here, as elsewhere, must be conducted
in humility.
"Let another praise you, and not your
own mouth; someone else, and not
your own lips" (Prov. 27:2). While it
is true that Gary North is saying these
things about someone else's book, he is
saying them as the publisher of the
book, and
as
the leader
of
the Tyler
group that is producing a large amount
of literature. He is therefore bragging
about something in which he has a
large interest, and that interest is not
humbly held.
There are two reasons why this sort
of boasting should be avoided.
1. The Bible forbids it. Those who
exalt themselves will be humbled. God
opposes the proud. The Bible warns
about disastrous consequences when the
presumption is revealed for what it is.
Those who take the high seat
of
honor
will fmd themselves deposed.
Sanctions
are a reality.
2. The Bible teaches that the king
dom of God grows and fills the earth,
as
leaven works through the loaf. What we
do here in our generation depends upon
what was done before.
There is continui-
ty in the work o God.
Therefore, theological contributions
must be offered with the awareness that
we are building on what has gone be
fore. I am sure that this would be
granted intellectually, but in this pre
face, there was no tone o gratitude at
all
Bunyan, for example, was dis
missed for being a wandering tinker,
and for spending too much time in
jail( ).
The Bible teaches that the one who
Page
19
The
Counsel of Chalcedon, April-May,
1988
7/21/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/6
1 \ \ t ~ WlW.. P ~ o v e . . f:>-e.
1 \ \ ~ V\O JT I M t ~ t \ \
C A ~ t {
6 \ ~ C E :
'11\E..
1f t:.'fOi::l'I\A \QN .
boasts, should boast in the Lord. In the
literature coming from Tyler, the boast
ing is humanistic.
In both That You May Prosper and
Days o Vengeance, Ray Sutton and
David Chilton write like Christian gen
tlemen, and they do not display this
layk
of
humility.
But they allowed their
books to be introduced by someone
who does not have that same restraint.
Until this problem is corrected, the
Reconstruction movement will not be
blessed by God. The armies of Israel
were defeated at i because
of
sin in the
camp. How much more will we be held
responsible? This sin isn't even hidden
away in someone's tent. It goes out
glued in the front
of
the books as a
Publisher's Preface.
On this subject, there is one final
warning. This type
of
boasting, and the
selfish. ambition that fuels it, is not a
sin that is content to remain alone.
J
s
tells that whenever you have
selfish ambition, you will also have
every evil practice (J as. 3: 16).
This means that, unless there is
repentance, the worthy emphasis on
ethics found in t h ~ Reconstructionist
movement
is doomed in the long run.
And why doomed? Because the law o
God cannot be kept by people
who
think that a f?gant boasting is a virtue.
Sooner or later, some other aspect of
God's law will also be set on its head
and ignored.
EXEGESIS
AND
EISEGESIS
There is another problem in the
Reconstructionist camp. This problem
is somewhat different than what has
been discussed so far in this article. It
concerns how the Bible is handled.
The problem does not appear, at frrst
glance,
to
be an attitude problem. This
is because it concerns how the Word of
God is handled, as opposed
to
how
other people are handled. The Recon
structionists tend to handle their op
ponents roughly, and the problem with
it
is easy to see.
In contrast, Mr. Jordan has a great
reverence for the Word
of
God. He also
appears to have a gracious spirit in how
he deals with those who disagree. But
his reverence for the Bible is not itself
biblical in approach. Therefore, the
long-term dangers presented
to
a godly
attitude are great.
The attitude problem here is not one
of churlishness. I t is rather a well
meaning desire to get God to say more
than He has chosen to. This can only
serve, in the long-run, to set aside the
Word
of
God for the sake
of
human
tradition. I hesitate to dispute at all
with Mr. Jordan because he appears to
be a well-meaning Christian gentleman.
But the approach to the Bible he
advocates is extremely dangerous.
have therefore decided to include
this
section on exegesis.
The apostle Paul instructed the
Corinthians, "Do not go beyond what
is written." The reason? "Then you will
not take pride in one man over against
another" 1 Cor. 4:6). Interpretations
which extend beyond the text are
divisive.
In contrast to this "minimal" ap
proach, Mr. Jordan argues, "We have to
explain this in order to distance our
selves from the 'interpretive minimal
ism' that has come to characterize evan
gelical commentaries on Scripture in
recent years."S
Mr. Jordan knows that certain tempta
tions accompany such interpretation,
and he addresses the problem. Unfortun
ately, his solution is another manifes
tation of the problem. He says, "What,
however, is our check on such
an
in
terpretation? We have to say that the
check and balance on interpretation
is.
the whole rest
of
Scripture
and
o
theo-
logy. 6 The emphasis is mine.
If
our theology is allowed, in any
measure, to regulate how the. Scriptures
are handled, then humanistic dross is
inserted into the pure Word of God. Do
we want some sort of Protestant
magisterium? God forbid Theology
must never regulate Scripture. Scripture .
must regulate theology.
Rushdoony is correct when he says
that systematic theology
is
inescapable.
It is not a question of whether, but
which.
We
therefore have a choice be
tween a systematic theology which is
derived from the Bible and is dependent
upon it, and those systematic theo
logies (and their name is Legion) which
are
superimposed on the text.
We must not allow our theologies to
become in any way authoritative in our
handling of the text. f this is not done,
we have lost the principle of Sola
Scriptura. Passages
of
Scripture are .
Page 20
......
.
--.--.--.--.....;.;.:---.--..;.......-. The Counsel of Chalcedont Aprll-Mayt 1988
7/21/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon
5/6
then put on some interpretive Procrus
tean bed and mangled accordingly.
A systematic theology must
be
first,
a biblical theology. It must refuse in
th
strongest way possible to go be-
yond th text.
Some who superimpose their theo
logies
on
the text are members
of
vari
ous cults. They see what they want to
see. But many who are perfectly ortho
dox do the same thing. They are
restrained from heresy, not by the Scrip
tures, but by the orthodox communion
to which they belong. But it is not
long before people begin to do to the
creeds
of
their church what they have
already done to the Word of God. They
see what they want to see.
Scripture and theology are not co
regents. There is no way to remain
submissive to Scripture without this
understanding.
Any attempt to build
such a co-regency will only result in
the regency
of
whatever theology the
builders hold. And i f that theology
was
orthodox, it will not remain so long.
But when we return to the restric
tions
of
sober exegesis we will discover
that it is not minimal at
all.
The rich
ness of the Scripture is profound -
- there is more than enough there to
keep
us
all occupied for generations.
Up
to this point, I have discussed the
general problem that will accompany
such broadening
of
our interpretive ap
proach. Theology will replace the
Bible, and that theology will not be or
thodox for long.
But there are two specific problems
that come with this approach which
will result in immediate difficulty for
Reconstructionists. This difficulty
should already
be
apparent.
First, this approach dilutes the Recon
structionist's effectiveness in those
areas where he does have a good biblical
case. For example, a sober handling of
Matthew 24 is already going to look
crazy to the average American evan
gelical. It doesn't help matters
if
theRe
constructionist turns around and starts
saying things that
really are crazy.
If we have adopted
an
approach which
allows the importation of theological
bias into the text, then we will be
ac-
cused of doing so -- even when we
haven't.
The second problem is this. Sinful
men do not like the Scriptures as they
stand.
Any method of interpretation that
allows for wiggle room is therefore wel
come.
We do not want our ranks full
of
men and women with heads filled with
bizarre interpretations, and lives filled
with personal sin.
It
is already hap
pening.
SANCTIONS
Being right is not enough. We must
be right in the right way. Jesus Christ
told the church at Ephesus that they had
to return to their first love, or their
lampstand would be removed. The same
thing applies to those who are fighting
under the banner of Reconstruction.
Pietists have restricted religion to the
attitude
of
the heart. This is thoroughly
unbiblical, and Reconstructionists
know it. But it is also unbiblical to
restrict religion to correct doctrine and
lifestyle apart from attitudes.
I have great delight in knowing that
the law of God applies to nations,
kings, presidents, congressmen, church
es and families. But it also applies to
our hearts, mouths and pens (and word
processors).
Unless this is recognized with re-
pentance following the Reconstruction
movement will amount to nothing that
has lasting spiritual value.
If
I under
stand the immorality of secular econo
mics, but have not love. . . . f I
publish better books than Jonathan
Edwards did, but have not love. . . . f
love isn't in it, then it stinks. And the
better the theology, the worse it stinks.
God is not mocked.
This is compre
hensively true. It does not just apply to
the humanists, or antinomian Chris
tians. It also applies to those who say
that God is not mocked, who then go
on to mock Him in the way they speak
and write.
It is not enough to mellow out a
little bit for the sake of selling books.
It
is necessary to understand the
spiritual issue involved, and repent.
Because the sin has been committed in
print, restitution should be made in
print. This restitution would include
an
apology to all those who have been
unbiblically reviled.
CONCLUSION
I have written principally about
Gary
North, and secondarily about the Recon-
The Counsel of Chalcedon, April-May,
1988
Page
2
7/21/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon
6/6
structionists who have tolerated
his
abra
siveness. I have also written about a
method
of
handling Scripture that will
prove ineffective in dealing with this
kind
of
problem.
I have not rushed in print with this
article {booklet}.
t
was preceded by a
private letter to Gary North to which
he did not respond. I do not know
whether he read it and disregarded it or
whether he never received it. Either
way
an
attempt was made to address
this problem privately first.
What should happen now?
My
desire
is that the people mentioned in this
booklet would make appropriate restitu
tion. If that is done well and good.
But
i
the unfortunate response is
that I have not made my case then I
request an opportunity to present a
more detailed case in person. I would
like to make it to anyone mentioned in
this article in the presence of those
elders to whom they are in submission.
If
that offer is rejected then I would
like to make the case in public debate. I
would be willing to debate Mr. North
on the first two points made
or
Mr.
Jordan on the third. I leave it to them to
decide time place format and forum. I
am at their disposal.
I have published this not because I
want Gary North out
of
the battle but
because I want him to become more
effective in the battle. e is a gifted
controversialist but all gifts must be
exercised the way the Giver instructs.
I have no idea if this call will be
heeded. If it is not then I pray that God
will raise up someone else to fight the
humanists the way God wants us
to.
If
it is heeded then we all should thank
God.
ENDNOTES
1. Productive Christians in an Age
o
Guilt Manipulators,
David Chilton page x
Foreword
Institute
for Christian Economics.
2
Tactics
o
Christian Resistance,
Gl\fY
North
ed.
page
170 Geneva Divinity
School Press.
.
T h ~ . e ~ : :
~ ' l i s ~ ~ C ~ f c ~ h J a J ; ~ ~
to be believed. Dominion Press.
4.
Ibid,
page
xviii
5
Judges: God s War Against Humanism,
James
Jordan page
xii
Introduction
Geneva
Ministries.
6. Ibid,
page
xiii
[Anyone wishing to respond may
reach Doug Wilson at 1017 East E
Moscow Idaho 83843.]
THE TEN COMM NDMENTS
FOR CHILDREN
Page The Counsel of Cbalcedon April-May
1988