1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon

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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

1988 Issue 4-5 - Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists - Counsel of Chalcedon