October, 1996

Dear ICE Subscriber:

Does Christian Reconstruction constitute a revolutionary theology? In Tools of Dominion, I argued that it does (pp. 7 8). Our comprehensive interpretation of Scripture in terms of the covenant represents a discontinuity in church history. Yet the peculiar fact of this aspect of Christian Reconstruction is that very little of what we hold is absolutely new. The only thing that is truly new in our system its reliance on Van Til's presuppositional apologetics. Yet Van Til was not a Reconstructionist. He was a demolitionist.

Consider our view of time. Being postmillennial, we know we can afford to bide our time. Significant historical change, we insist, comes only over long periods of time. This is a very conservative view of time. I like to call it the Vatican's view of time. But this view of time, when coupled with the concept of compound growth, can produce comprehensive transformation. With compound growth, low rates of growth produce huge results if the process is not reversed. The Communists always understood this, which is why they were successful. They were willing to devote years to working quietly in the shadows. They understood that you must prepare the soil before you plant the crop. They were willing to pay the price: years of labor that bore no immediate fruit. This is revolutionary.

Christianity has always been a revolutionary idea. So has Islam. Marxism was for a time a revolutionary idea. Darwinism still is. Each of them has produced a transformation in how men have thought about all five points of the covenant. Each of them has had a five-point covenant theology of its own: God, man, law, sanctions, and time. Without this, they would not be revolutionary.

In one sense, Christian Reconstructionism is not a revolutionary idea, and never will be. Our view of God is not different from Augustine's, let alone Calvin's. Neither is our view of man. Our view of law is different from Augustine's, but not much different from what many of the pre-1660 Puritans believed. Our view of historical sanctions is also not different from their view. Neither is our view of eschatology. Christian Reconstructionism is therefore is revolutionary only in the sense that Puritanism was. Christian Reconstructionism is an extension of Christianity. It can do no more than consolidate the faith through greater precision and thereby motivate covenant-keepers to greater dedication. Yet if our ideas are widely accepted, this will be revolutionary. Society will be transformed.

Christian Reconstruction does represent a break with the past in the sense that we have put together five familiar elements of Christian theology, all Calvinistic — the absolute sovereignty of a Creator God, the doctrine of the covenant, and the Puritans' three doctrines: biblical law, biblical law's sanctions, and postmillennial eschatology. Then how can Reconstructionism be regarded an innovation? Because of Van Til's radical apologetic: his break from all forms of natural law theory. His apologetic served as a kind of theological catalyst. It created the transformation: first in Rushdoony, then in me, and then in others.

Vantillian presuppositionalism sets Reconstruction apart from traditional Anglo-American, Puritan-Presbyterian apologetics. Apologetics is an aspect of point four of the biblical covenant: intellectual sanctions or judgment. Van Til placed man's judgment in subordination to God: point two. Points two and four are intimately linked in covenant theology in regard to man's position and his intellectual judgment in history. Man must think God's thoughts after him, Van Til said: subordination. But man must then render judgment: point four. Van Til was clearly a revolutionary, which is why the non-revolutionaries at Westminster Seminary have abandoned his system. They have seen where it has to lead: to theocracy. Van Til's apologetic forces its adherents to answer a very theocratic question: "If not God's law, then what?" Westminster refuses to answer.

What sets Christian Reconstructionism apart from Van Til's original theology is its answer to the question: "By what standard?" Van Til would not answer "biblical law" (or anything else). Another difference is our eschatology. Van Til was amillennial. He believed in a perverse view of God's historical sanctions: as covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers become progressively more consistent with their own presuppositions, covenant-breakers will increase their power over covenant-keepers. This reverses the view of sanctions presented in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In Van Til's view — and every amillennialist's view — the good will get weaker and the bad will get stronger. This view of historical sanctions correlates with the amillennialist's view of the future. Points four and five are intimately linked on the question of God's corporate sanctions in history.

The greatest revolution in history was God's extension of grace to fallen man (Gen. 3:15). That revolution was grounded in Christ's predestined work of redemption in the future. If God had not been faithful in bringing forth His covenant-keeping Son, who did crush the head of the serpent, there could have been no extension of grace to Adam. This extension of grace was greater than — more revolutionary than — Adam's fall. Paul wrote:

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5:17 21).

The transition from wrath to grace in history was therefore a greater revolution than the transition from grace to wrath. Because Christian Reconstructionists believe this judicially, we also believe it eschatologically. This is why we are postmillennialists.

The Christian community today is almost totally dominated by pessimillennialism: premillennialism and amillennialism. Pessimillennialists believe, with respect to the work of the Church in carrying out the Great Commission, that Adam's transition from grace to wrath has more impact culturally than Christ's transition from wrath to grace.

Christ came under God's wrath in our place. His substitutionary atonement made Him a vessel of God's wrath. His resurrection, and, more to the point, his ascension to heaven visibly demonstrated that grace is greater in history than wrath. This is why pessimillennialism makes almost no use of the doctrine of the ascension. Premillennialists believe that God will not extend His kingdom in history until after the Church is raptured, the righteous dead are resurrected, and Jesus comes back bodily to sit on an earthly throne. Amillennialists believe much same. They debate with each other only over the timing of Christ's bodily return: at the last judgment or a millennium prior to it. For premillennialists, Christ's bodily ascension does not empower the Church sufficiently to fulfill the Great Commission; only Christ's bodily descent can do that. In short, neither the premillennialist nor the amillennialist can explain eschatologically the following words of Jesus:

But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now (John 16:5 12).

Like Christ's disciples prior to His ascension, pessimillennialists also cannot bear these words. They do not acknowledge that the Holy Spirit's empowering of Christians is sufficient to enable Christians, over time, to fulfil the terms of the Great Commission. Christ's bodily resurrection demonstrated that this commission can be fulfilled by the Church in history; His bodily ascension demonstrated that it will be fulfilled in history.

Pessimillennialists deny this — not in print, but in principle. In print, they say nothing. They steadfastly refrain from commenting on the meaning of the ascension in history for the Church's work in history. They are stone, cold silent regarding the ascension's place in social theory, as well they should be, given their view of the future. They have nothing to say about the relevance of the ascension for the future of the Church because their view of the future of the Church is one of institutional failure on a worldwide scale. They believe that Christ's bodily ascension in history is irrelevant outside of the Christian heart, the Christian family, and the four walls of an ever-shrinking, increasingly persecuted Church. With respect to their views of society at large, including civil government, they remain intellectually immobilized by the doctrine of Adam's fall.

With such a view of the future, the pessimillennialist's view of society is basically this: "Raise the drawbridge!" Or, using a mid-nineteenth century American analogy, "Form a circle with the wagons!" He does not expect to be able to be able to conquer the Vikings or the howling savages who have surrounded him. Yet in history, the gospel conquered the Vikings, and Western technology and demographics conquered the American Indians.

Inside the castle, we cannot conquer the Vikings. Inside the circle of wagons, we cannot conquer the Indians. There are times to be inside castles and the circle of wagons. There are times when we are outnumbered. But these times are temporary. The Vikings appeared periodically, not continually. The Indians banded together in raids periodically, not continually. What is both continual and continuous is the gospel (Matt. 24:35; I Pet. 1:24 25). What is both continual and continuous in history is not howling savagery but the institutional Church. Redemption — the transition from wrath to grace — is the central fact of history. Christ's resurrection and ascension, not Adam's rebellion and death, remain the crucial events in history. But if they are the crucial events in history, they are also the crucial determinants of the future. This is what the pessimillennialist refuses to believe.

Pessimillennialists freely acknowledge that Satan occupies no earthly throne in history, nor will he ever occupy one. Satan extends or defends his kingdom by means of his subordinate covenantal representatives — mainly men rather than fallen angels. Jesus Christ extends and defends His kingdom the same way: mainly through men rather than unfallen angels. Nevertheless, insists the pessimillennialist, until Jesus rules bodily from an earthly throne, having left His heavenly throne, His Church will remain divided, His kingdom will remain besieged, and His Great Commission will remain unfulfilled.

What does this really mean theologically? It should be obvious, but the pessimillennialists are too embarrassed by it to say this in public. It means that Satan's covenant in history is more powerful than Christ's. It means that Satan's covenantal agents will remain more empowered by Satan in history than Christ's covenantal agents are empowered by the Holy Spirit. In short, Adam's fall remains more powerful in history than Christ's ascension. Of course, they refuse to say this so boldly, but this is what they believe. They do not put things so starkly, but this is what their theology demands.

It is time for postmillennialists to press their pessimillennial critics for answers. "What is your view of the ascension's effects eschatologically?" "What is your view of the cultural effects of empowerment by the Holy Spirit?" "What is your view of the throne of God in heaven compared to Satan's throne in hell? Which throne has more power in history?" "Whose covenant is more powerful in history, Christ's or Satan's?" It is time for postmillennialists to ask the pessimillennialists to admit what they really believe.

 

Sincerely,