Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I'm not a theonomic reconstructionist, but I am sympathetic to the form advocated by guys like Rushdoony and North, even though I have some differences of opinion from them. The form that is often seen on this website is way too statist, and particularly pro-war, for the actual reconstructionists.
Greg Bahnsen:
http://americanvision.org/9926/bahnsen-war/
More Bahnsen (Same Source):
More Bahnsen:
(I highly recommend reading the whole article, there's so much good stuff in it)
Joel McDurmon:
http://americanvision.org/11359/rushdoony-on-war/
RJ Rushdoony:
Bojidar Marinov:
And also this:
And later in the article he endorses Ron Paul (as I know McDurmon has), the article is here: http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/neo-conservative-betrayal-and-cowardice/
The theonomic movement was initially a reformed movement, and has many similarities with libertarianism. Indeed, many theonomists call themselves libertarians: despite several differences between Ron Paul style libertarianism and reconstructionism, there are far more similarities than there are between reconstructionism and neoconservatism. Rushdoony also once said theonomic theocracy is "the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had."
Those of you who are pro-war and think they are theonomists, what movement are you in again?
Greg Bahnsen:
5. The potential cost to be incurred by warfare should not be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied. Bahnsen explains,
Just stop and think about it: there are probably some bad things happening in the world that we might be able very successfully to take care of, but the cost of taking care of them would turn out to be a greater burden, a greater evil to us than the remedy of those evils themselves. That has to be taken into account.
6. Finally, the means of violence employed must be both discriminate and proportional. The means must not be “an all-out war, do whatever you can, to obliterate the enemy. . . . The violence that is employed must be only that which is sufficient to restore the peace that has been destroyed by the aggressor nation.”
Further, this means it should be “a war that carefully distinguishes civilians from combatants.” Collateral damage of innocents, for example through drone strikes, Bahnsen therefore probably would not have sanctioned.
http://americanvision.org/9926/bahnsen-war/
More Bahnsen (Same Source):
For those who take an antagonistic position to that will be very quick to tell us that the Bible cannot be our guide, because when we look at the Bible, we see what has come to be called “holy wars” of Jehovah. And do we really wish to say that we are in the same position as Old Testament Israel, that special nation chosen by God to be His redeemed people; that elect, holy nation being sent by God into war? Do we really wish to say that we, perhaps because we’re a “Christian nation,” have the right to go out and destroy communism anywhere on the globe? Do we really want to take that mantle upon ourselves of “holy war”?
Bahnsen refutes this position: there is a “special place for holy war provisions, the crusades of God, in the Bible.”
It is true that God gave positive commands for a particular time and place to impose a special curse of mass capital punishment upon the Canaanite tribes as Israel occupied the land. And I believe that this guidance from God has a unique role in the history of redemption. That is to say, what we read in the Bible about God’s provisions of holy war has a unique place—not a normative, not a common, not an ongoing nor a valid place—in our reasoning about war.
More Bahnsen:
In the course of such siege/war, or even subsequent war itself, Deuteronomy 20:19–20 demands that you shall not destroy the fruit trees of that land; the non-fruit trees only could be cut down, and only for the war effort. Bahnsen explains: “What this tells us is that total destruction of a culture, and total destruction of its livelihood, is not the godly way to wage war. There are to be no wars of annihilation. . . . War is to be waged against combatants and not against the earth, and thus destructive power must be used discriminately.”
(I highly recommend reading the whole article, there's so much good stuff in it)
Joel McDurmon:
These laws calls us to war only in just causes, for defensive wars only, with voluntary militias, only after every possible avenue of peace is exhausted, only in measured responses, only when feasible physically and financially, and only where we have legitimate jurisdiction to do so. These laws, according to Bahnsen, forbid standing armies, wars of aggression, and interventionism. Bahnsen’s non-interventionist principle would have us as a nation, most of the time, minding our own business, pursuing peace, and sending missionaries instead of soldiers.
http://americanvision.org/11359/rushdoony-on-war/
RJ Rushdoony:
We see here as elsewhere that there is nothing outside of God’s government. Work, worship, war, eating, sanitation, and all things else are subject to His laws. He is totally the Governor of all things. The marginal note to this text in the Geneva Bible tells us, “God permitteth not this people to fight when it seemeth good to them.” We are in all things totally under His government.
God’s laws of warfare view legitimate warfare as the defense of the family and the land. Modern warfare is waged for political, not covenantal, reasons. Moreover, nonbiblical wars are waged more and more against civilians, as were pagan wars. Thus, there is a great gap between political wars and those permitted by God’s law.
Bojidar Marinov:
Neo-cons should have read Murray Rothbard, but they are afraid of Rothbard’s implications because they worship America, and its place as a god-state. The left does this too, and has done so since Rousseau (heck, since Hobbes). The left, however, doesn’t pretend to have Christian social ethics, so they are not bound by deference to abortion, homosexuality, and other travesties of morality. In that respect, and only in that respect, Republicans, neo-cons, and most conservative leaning people, are marginally different than the left. (I state that with a huge grain of salt, mostly because since the “right” has accepted the left’s argumentation on government and society, they are only 30-60 years behind on social issues. They have not taken a principled stand, and will eventually come to the left’s position, while the left progresses onward. I cannot address that here.)
And also this:
To prove this I will point out two examples of selective biblical ethics. Rush Limbaugh, “conservative” radio talk show host, and Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and Presidential candidate. Both these men have been married multiple times, and divorced just as many. Gingrich has sold his opinion many times to the highest bidder, as well as his principles. Gingrich and Limbaugh, who are wealthy, rightly oppose government theft in the form of welfare, but not because they don’t believe in stealing money from some to give to others, or accepted money stolen themselves (I’m thinking especially of Gingrich here, and not so much Limbaugh). The two do accept welfare when they don’t perceive the money as having come out of their pocket, or when they feel they will see a return on investment, such as international nation-building, largely in the Middle East. They oppose welfare because they are in a higher tax-bracket, not because they feel it is always wrong (vis-a-vis the nation building, which is exported welfare). So two of the major leaders of the “conservative” movement in the U.S. have stated they wish to affirm classic (or traditional) values, especially those forged by Christianity. But they are unwilling to apply them consistently to their own lives. As the book of James says, he who has erred in one law has erred in them all.
And later in the article he endorses Ron Paul (as I know McDurmon has), the article is here: http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/neo-conservative-betrayal-and-cowardice/
The theonomic movement was initially a reformed movement, and has many similarities with libertarianism. Indeed, many theonomists call themselves libertarians: despite several differences between Ron Paul style libertarianism and reconstructionism, there are far more similarities than there are between reconstructionism and neoconservatism. Rushdoony also once said theonomic theocracy is "the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had."
Those of you who are pro-war and think they are theonomists, what movement are you in again?