Questioning Christian Reconstructionism (Dominionism) – and Defending the Way of the Cross « Christian in America

The hypocrisy of the Reconstructionist Left wing of the "Evangelical" and "Reformed" spokesmen for the church is telling.  I'm certainly no Reconstructionist or Theonomist.  I agree more with the two kingdoms theology more often than not.  The blatant hypocrisy of the left is itself a form of reconstructionism and theonomy.  After all, it is a basic human right to murder your own unborn children, to spread gross immorality in the guise of gay/lesbian/transgender rights, and the right to view all the porn you want at any time you want.  And all this is hidden behind a sincere concern for the "poor".

But logically speaking if these idiots on the left are going to say that we and the government have a moral obligation to the poor, are they not advocating the idea that the government has an obligation to pass laws that uphold the moral law of God?  Is it a moral obligation or law to love our neighbors and our enemies or is it not?  If so, I have to ask how "love" endorses gross immorality and even murder under the facade of "love"?  Is it loving to destroy the traditional family, promote porn and homosexuality as "individual" freedom, while at the same time pretending to be for the poor and against the rich?

I posted the following comment over at Matthew Tuininga's blog:

If you're saying the "state" has a moral obligation to care for the poor, isn't that a form of "reconstructionism"?  And if the state has an obligation to keep God's moral law, doesn't that extend also to vice and gross immorality?  Murder and theft are against the law, aren't they?  But the state is also pushing gross immorality like the murder of the unborn and the gay/lesbian/transgender propaganda as if Christians are the ones who are immoral because they say there are limits to individual freedom, particularly when individualism is the source of moral decay and the erosion of traditional values that keep society healthy in the realm of general providence.

I'm no reconstructionist or theonomist.  But it seems to me that your criticism of Ball cuts both ways.  I am opposed to atheistic secularism and secular humanism.  But I have no problem with Christian humanism as it is supposed to glorify God and to do so by loving God, our neighbor and even our enemies.

Anyone who votes for the Left is voting not to help the poor but to kill babies, push pornography and homosexuality.  If you really want to help the poor, sell everything you have and give some of it to alms and charity:)  Oh, but wait, you just broke the 10th commandment.  Thou shalt not covet.  Higher taxes means you don't really have to love your neighbor or the church member you should have helped out.  After all, the evil secular humanists will do it for you.

Great Christian ethics you got there.

Charlie J. Ray

Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that I reject postmillennialism, reconstruction, and theonomy.  I despise any idea of works or merits or the idea that human efforts alone can transform society.   On the other hand, any good Christian must also be a good citizen and obey God's moral law--which would include passing laws that uphold God's moral law as best we can.  If that moral law includes some moderation between pure capitalism and pure communism, so be it.  But one thing it cannot do is divorce the two kingdoms so completely that we go along blindly to the slaughterhouse while religious freedoms and the law of God are slowly being eradicated from our society.  At some point it seems that conservative Christianity will be for all practical purposes against the law.  Folks like Matthew Tuininga seem to think this is a good thing?

I certainly do not wish to confuse the moral law with the Gospel as the right wing reconstructionists have obviously done.  But when the two kingdoms folks attack the moral conservatives for opposing the politically correct propaganda of gay rights and the right to murder the unborn, they reveal themselves as leftist and atheistic socialists who care nothing for the moral law of God.  And the real irony is they hide their departure from the faith behind a moral law that says we ought to care for the poor.  Caring for the poor is all well and good.  But when that view is so prominent that secularism becomes the new "theonomy" of the nation, something is wrong.

Charlie

Click here to read Matthew Tuininga's blog:

Questioning Christian Reconstructionism (Dominionism) – and Defending the Way of the Cross « Christian in America