{"id":1683,"date":"2026-05-03T18:36:37","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T17:36:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/?page_id=1683"},"modified":"2026-05-04T18:46:24","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T17:46:24","slug":"dominionist-movement","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/dominion-theology-recovering-our-social-and-political-responsibility\/dominionist-movement\/","title":{"rendered":"The Dominionist Movement"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Dominionist Movement<\/h2>\n

Overview<\/h3>\n

The purpose of this chapter is to identify the first generation of major thinkers within the dominionist movement founded by Rushdoony\u00a0and how their collective intellectual force caused a paradigm shift within conservative evangelical\u00a0Christianity. This represented perhaps the greatest reorientation of the conservative church in its history.<\/p>\n

Reconstructionism<\/h3>\n

Three appendices to Rushdoony\u2019s Institutes <\/em>were written by Gary North. North was supported by Rushdoony through doctoral studies and eventually hired to work at Rushdoony\u2019s Chalcedon foundation. With North came Greg Bahnsen. Both men were recognized as \u201cbrilliant students,\u201d and both had studied under Van Til\u00a0at Westminster Seminary.[1]<\/a> They worked closely with Rushdoony and developed the platform that became known as Reconstructionism\u00a0and propagated his ideas into the mainstream of evangelical\u00a0consciousness.<\/p>\n

Greg Bahnsen\u00a0and Theonomy<\/h4>\n

We saw in the previous chapter that theonomy\u00a0was central to Rushdoony\u2019s philosophy and was built upon Van Tillianism. Theonomy was taken on and developed with great academic rigor by Bahnsen, who was really the <\/a>intellectual engine and popularizer, and the center of the controversy, of this central component of Reconstructionism. As it was such a large part of the movement and the foundation of so much of its program, it is worth considering Bahnsen\u2019s position and contribution in detail.<\/p>\n

Van Til\u00a0had wanted Bahnsen\u00a0to replace him when he retired from Westminster, and Bahnsen\u00a0had been asked by him to lecture for Van Til during a period of illness\u2014such was his confidence in the student. Bahnsen\u00a0comprehended the full implications of Van Til\u2019s apologetic and developed it rigorously. His first major statement was in the publication of Theonomy in Christian Ethics.<\/em>[2]<\/strong><\/em><\/a> It is especially significant that Rushdoony\u00a0wrote the foreword to the book and put it in the context of the dominion mandate. For Rushdoony, a failure to keep the law renders the church impotent because it denies God\u2019s holiness and separates humanity from God\u2019s power.[3]<\/a> Bahnsen\u2019s thesis centered on an exegesis of Matt 5:17\u201320 and asserted that the Old Testament law was not abrogated in any theological or ethical sense by Christ\u2019s crucifixion and resurrection.[4]<\/a> The law was to be kept \u201cevery jot and tittle[5]<\/a> but, as with Rushdoony, it is important to understand that Bahnsen\u00a0was not asserting legalism:<\/p>\n

The law does not<\/em> save a man, but it does<\/em> show him why<\/em> he needs to be saved and how <\/em>he is to walk after he is saved. Because God\u2019s moral nature, his holiness, is revealed in the law, the law accuses and convicts its reader of sin.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

The ethics for the Christian remain the same as for the old covenant believer, but how God enables us to keep the ethical law have changed; it is by the grace through Jesus Christ writing the law on our hearts:
\n<\/a>
\n\u201cFulfilment\u2019 in [Matt 5:17] [is] not any sort of euphemism for \u201crelaxation\u201d or \u201cinvalidation\u201d . . . far from being different from the first covenant, the ethical stipulations of that new covenant would be the same as the original law; God says He will write the law on His people\u2019s hearts, not change the law.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Fierce reaction to Bahnsen\u00a0ensued from within the liberal, evangelical, and, perhaps most surprisingly, from his own Reformed\u00a0circles.[8]<\/a> There was a concerted campaign against his ordination in the OPC, and after completing his doctorate, he only managed a brief controversial tenure at RTS, where the controversy surrounding his theonomical views within the faculty led to the termination of his position.[9]<\/a> He was not again to hold a position in a major academic institution despite his brilliance and recognition as a skillful debater within mainstream academia.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yet, during this brief period, he inspired a group of students, including Keith Gentry, Gary DeMar, James B. Jordan, Michael Butler, and David Chilton, who became the next generation of Reconstructionist thinkers developing work on eschatology\u00a0(Gentry and Chilton), pastoral theology (Jordan), political theory (DeMar), and philosophy (Butler). Between them, in less in a matter of a few years, they authored over sixty-seven books that were to force Christian Reconstructionism\u00a0to the forefront of the evangelical consciousness. Bahnsen\u2019s legacy is still strongly represented by the output of the Covenant Media Foundation<\/em>, which he began as the means to distribute his written and recorded materials.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

Greg Bahnsen\u00a0and \u201cFederal Vision\u201d<\/h4>\n

After the premature death of Bahnsen, his CMF became influential in the propagation of the \u201cfederal vision\u201d theology, which is viewed as a paradigm shift within classical Calvinism and effectively dilutes, if not denies, historical Reformed\u00a0commitments regarding the Christian\u2019s relationship to the law of God.[12]<\/a> Even its most enthusiastic proponents recognize it as a \u201cparadigm <\/a>shift\u201d away from classical Calvinism and into a more legalistic framework.[13]<\/a> Bahnsen\u2019s son indicated he believed his father would be sympathetic to FV, whereas other past students of Bahnsen\u00a0have argued forcefully to the contrary.[14]<\/a> Nevertheless, with James Jordan, a former pastor of Tyler\u2019s Reconstructionist Westminster Presbyterian Church firmly in the FV camp, FV is sometimes viewed as a distinctive development of Reconstructionism\u00a0having a more moderate theonomical viewpoint:<\/p>\n

The strict Theonomists . . . say that [we] must implement the Mosaic law as it stands. The more moderate Christian Reconstructionists have said that the Bible\u00a0as a whole, including the Mosaic law wisely applied in line with New Covenant principles, should be the guide.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

There is nothing controversial in this statement; indeed, it would be considered the mainstream theonomical position. However, this is then<\/em> combined with the requirement to keep<\/em> that law as a continuing condition<\/em> of salvation. In contrast, Bahnsen\u2019s Theonomy<\/em> had argued that the keeping of the law was a consequence<\/em> of salvation: we are saved by \u201cgrace alone.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus, the chief theological argument concerns the interpretation of the relative positions of James and Paul\u00a0regarding \u201cfaith\u201d and \u201cworks,\u201d which have long caused problems of interpretation as their literal sense would appear contradictory.[16]<\/a> However, the Reformed\u00a0position, since Luther\u00a0has always been clear\u2014we are saved by grace alone<\/em>\u2014which is the Pauline principle; but our works evidence<\/em> our faith, which Calvin\u00a0then viewed as surely the correct application of James\u2019s polemic. Whereas Luther was initially less persuaded on this last point, Calvin\u00a0was explicit in his exposition of it in his commentary on James. FV seems to be a <\/a>retrograde iteration of this argument, taking a side against both Calvin\u2019s and Luther\u2019s positions; hence, the intense opposition to this position from within the Reformed\u00a0communion, and it is correct to view it as an aberration and departure from New Testament orthodoxy.<\/p>\n

Gary North\u00a0and the Tyler Reconstructionists<\/h4>\n

Gary North was first hired to edit the scholarly journal of Rushdoony\u2019s Chalcedon foundation and published his seminal Introduction to Christian Economics <\/em>in 1973.[17]<\/a> North excelled at developing economic theory, becoming known as \u201cthe economist of the Reconstruction movement,\u201d and he distilled Rushdoony\u2019s dense narrative into practical tools.[18]<\/a> He presented these through a mixture of popular, polemical, and scholarly publications targeted at the seminary, conservative political activist groups, and the layperson.[19]<\/a> His Institute for Christian Economics (ICE) was primarily responsible for the vast literary output of the Reconstructionist movement during the 1980s and 1990s.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

His intention was for a relentless polemic and scholarly rebuttal of the movement\u2019s critics within academia and the development of practical programs and strategies to promote the Reconstructionist agenda at a grassroots political level.[21]<\/a> He effectively founded a separate political, militant, and publishing wing of the Reconstruction movement based in Tyler, Texas, which also had an associated \u201cprototype\u201d Reconstructionist church and a divinity school.[22]<\/a> This functioned in a similar but more aggressive fashion to Rushdoony\u2019s Chalcedon foundation. He was a guest<\/a> numerous times on Pat Robertson\u2019s CBN\u2019s 700<\/em> Club<\/em> during the 1980s, which was testimony to the success of his strategies, his increasing reputation within Reconstructionism, and the growth of Reconstructionism\u2019s influence on the wider evangelical\u00a0consciousness.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n

Schism and Reformation<\/h4>\n

During the early years of Tyler, North was still editing the Chalcedon journal, but he was to split ideologically with Rushdoony\u00a0over the means for societal reformation and broke acrimoniously with him over a mix of personal and theological issues in 1981.[24]<\/a> North was fired by Rushdoony, who, at the same time, also fired his fellow Tyler men Ray Sutton and James Jordan, who were on the Chalcedon staff. Sutton and Jordan had developed a radical ecclesiology as the means for societal transformation in opposition to Rushdoony\u2019s familial model, which became known as the \u201cTyler theology.\u201d[25]<\/a> However, the Tyler church and divinity school had both unraveled by the end of the 1980s, being described by one important former member as an example of \u201cReconstructionist ecclesiolatry.\u201d[26]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Tyler men eventually left to their own projects and think tanks, with Reconstructionism\u00a0becoming an effective blend of Tyler, Bahnsen, and Chalcedon. Though much is made of the excesses of Tyler and the break with Chalcedon, North and the other Reconstructionists were still to reference Rushdoony\u00a0through their own works.[27]<\/a> Their tributes to him at his passing in 2001 are testament to the intellectual and personal debt they felt that they owed to him.[28]<\/a> Thus, in the contemporary context, <\/a>alongside second-generation Reconstructionist Gary DeMar\u2019s stewardship of the American Vision foundation and the post-Bahnsen\u00a0CMF, the three arenas of Reconstructionist thought might be now better thought of as complimentary rather than in an adversarial mode of relation, as was the case for a period in the early 1990s.[29]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Diversification of the Movement<\/h3>\n

\u201cThe Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend\u201d<\/h4>\n

An aspect of North\u2019s earlier thought, which brings us into the contemporary period of dominion theology, was his recognition and willingness to engage with what he felt was a major \u201cconvergence\u201d between Protestant\u00a0theologies that had been implacably polarized and hostile to one another. As both Tyler and Chalcedon pushed into the mainstream ideology of the New Right and began to heavily influence a new generation of Christian activists, both he and Rushdoony\u00a0recognized that elements of Reconstructionism\u00a0were being incorporated into revised fundamentalist, charismatic, and Pentecostal\u00a0ideologies, far from Reconstruction\u2019s Reformed\u00a0roots:<\/p>\n

[The] growing alliance between charismatics and Reconstructionists has disturbed Reformed\u00a0Presbyterians almost as much as it has disturbed premillennial dispensationalists. It has led to accusations of heresy against both groups from all sides: pietistic Pentecostalism, pietistic Scofieldism, and pietistic Presbyterianism. The critics worry about the fact that Pentecostalism\u2019s infantry is at last being armed with Reconstructionism\u2019s field artillery. They should be worried. This represents one of the most fundamental realignments in U.S. Protestant\u00a0church history.[30]<\/a><\/p>\n

Both North and Rushdoony\u00a0addressed charismatic conferences and seminars and developed personal contacts and friendships with charismatics, which would have been thought impossible when Rushdoony first wrote the Institutes<\/em>, with its stinging criticism of charismatic Christianity. Both recognized a shift in the political and theological consciousness of evangelical\u00a0Christians:
\n<\/a>
\nYounger charismatics and most of the independent Christian day schools are headed toward biblical law and away from the social and political policies of inaction that have been common in traditional, pietistic, dispensational circles since 1925. They are picketing against abortion clinics (legalized in 1973 by the U. S. Supreme Court, but not by God\u2019s Supreme Court). They are adopting ethics religion and abandoning the older escapist religion. The key word in this shift of perspective is \u201cdominion.\u201d The secondary word is \u201cresistance.\u201d Resistance to what? Secular humanism\u00a0and its legal arm, the Federal government.[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

There is little argument with North on this point. By the end of the 1980s, Rushdoony\u00a0had estimated \u201c20 million Christians [in the US] ascribed to some aspect of theonomical or Reconstructionist thinking.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Fundamentalist Dimension<\/h4>\n

Reconstructionism\u2019s movement into the mainstream was due to its influence on key fundamentalist\u00a0and evangelical\u00a0leaders. One of the hugely significant bridges between the previously hostile Reformed\u00a0Reconstruction movement and what can be loosely called the \u201cfundamentalist\u201d and \u201cbroad-church\u201d conservative movements were the Schaeffers.[33]<\/a> Francis Schaeffer, the elder Schaeffer, was one of the important US cultural figures of the 1960s and 1970s, and even more so for the modern evangelicals; he had also studied under Van Til\u00a0in the 1930s and had clearly taken some inspiration from him.[34]<\/a> He is credited more than any other evangelical\u00a0leader during the <\/a>1970s with rallying conservative Christian opinion in response to the \u201cabortion on demand\u201d ruling in the Roe vs. Wade\u00a0ruling in 1973.[35]<\/a><\/p>\n

The younger Schaeffer, Franky, was a filmmaker and took his father\u2019s words and turned them into films that reached a large audience and helped galvanize anti-abortion opinion.[36]<\/a> However, Franky also wrote highly polemical works encouraging legal activism and worked with John Whitehead at the Rutherford Institute. Whitehead had been influenced and personally mentored by Rushdoony\u00a0into legal activism and advocacy in the founding of the ACLJ, a conservative version of the ACLU. The focus was on defending religious liberty, the right to homeschooling, and preserving space for religious expression within the public sphere, which, as we have previously documented, had been under siege owing to the barely disguised radical socialism of the ACLU, and the legacy of the liberal Warren Supreme Court\u00a0period during the 1950s and 1960s. Franky Schaeffer was brought into contact with Rushdoony\u2019s works, quoted them in his work and recommended Rushdoony\u2019s Chalcedon foundation to his evangelical audience.[37]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Pentecostal\u00a0Movements<\/h4>\n

However, what was more startling was the influence Reconstructionism began to exert on Pentecostalism. The twentieth-century Pentecostal\u00a0movement that had started in Azusa Street around 1906 emphasized spiritual experience, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and was apocryphally related to the \u201centhusiasm\u201d of the Welsh Revival of 1904\u20135.[38]<\/a> Pentecostalism fundamentally changed the spiritual dynamics of a section of the Protestant\u00a0church and became the putative heirs of eighteenth-century <\/a>Arminian revivalism, emphasizing the role of free will and individual choice in salvation.<\/p>\n

This revivalism\u00a0precipitated an evolution of many new denominations during the twentieth century. First, the emergence of the \u201cclassic\u201d Pentecostal\u00a0denominations, such as the Apostolic Faith Church, AOG, COG, COGIC, Elim, and Foursquare, which were all founded before 1930. Secondly, the 1950s saw the emergence of the \u201cbig tent\u201d healing revivals and the foundation of Oral Roberts University (ORU), which had close links with the Word of Faith\u00a0movement under Dr. Kenneth Hagin, was founded in 1963.[39]<\/a> Thirdly, during the 1970s and 1980s, the emergence of the \u201chouse church\u201d and charismatic movements in both Britain, America, and Western Europe. It was also a time of a new wave of mission movements, such as the CCFC and YWAM. It continued to mutate and develop during the 1980s with the Kingdom Now\u00a0movement and the birth of the distinctive neo-Pentecostalism\u00a0of Central and South America[40]<\/a> and the megachurches of Africa and Asia.[41]<\/a><\/p>\n

Historical Pentecostalism\u00a0had shared the theological emphasis of the modern revivalist movement that was inherited from the classical fundamentalists and their antipathy to social action, which meant that though many millions had \u201ccome into the kingdom,\u201d there was frequently little evidence of national change or positive influence of the massive numerical growth of the new churches. Such was the lack of social progress that by the mid-1970s, key leaders within the movements, such as C. Peter Wagner, Loren Cunningham, and Landa Cope, began to reflect on this wider cultural irrelevance and the political impotence of the Pentecostal and charismatic churches.<\/p>\n

For example, in a documentary study related by Cope, it was found that in the most \u201cChristianized\u201d city of the United States (Dallas, Texas), there was found to be no improvement in drug addiction or homelessness, <\/a>and divorce was at equivalent or greater rates than non-Christian communities.[42]<\/a> What provoked Cope more than anything else was that when the local spiritual leaders of the community had been challenged regarding the decay of their communities, they held that none of this was their concern, for they were \u201cspiritual leaders.\u201d[43]<\/a> Thus, the paradox seen by Wagner, Cope, Cunningham, and others like them was that even though the Western church was numerically stronger<\/em> than it had ever been, its influence<\/em> politically and economically was smaller<\/em> than it had ever been.<\/p>\n

As a response, by the mid-1970s, they began to embrace Rushdoony\u2019s ideas of a \u201ccultural mandate\u201d in a slightly softened and repackaged form as the \u201cseven mountains\u201d mandate.[44]<\/a> Notably, Wagner\u00a0had explicitly adopted the language of dominion theology\u00a0and was clearly influenced directly by Reconstructionism, though he attempted to distance himself explicitly from the extreme, theocratic elements of the Tyler theology.[45]<\/a> In fact, the perceived similarity to Reconstructionism\u00a0was so obvious that Wagner himself testifies, \u201cSome wanted me ousted from Christendom\u2014 immediately!\u201d[46]<\/a> In reaction, it is arguable that he softened his view and rebranded his ministry to a degree in mitigation to the hostility aimed at him, but he remained clear that<\/p>\n

the underlying premise is that God wills his people here on earth [to] take dominion of the society in which we live, promoting the values, blessings and prosperity of His Kingdom\u00a0. . . fear is . . . the principal driving [element] underlying the sincere opposition by some to Dominionism.[47]<\/a><\/p>\n

Wagner\u00a0is also important because of his links with John Wimber of the \u201cpower evangelism\u201d movement, perhaps the most famous of the charismatic leaders during the 1980s and the first part of the 1990s. This, in turn, is important because Wimber is the spiritual father of what might be <\/a>termed the contemporary \u201cfifth wave\u201d churches. These are churches that trace their genesis and inspiration to the 1994 \u201coutpouring\u201d of the Holy Spirit at what was then the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church with the Arnotts as leaders. This movement attracted a notoriety of such a degree that Wimber suspended the church from the Vineyard association, which provoked the corresponding response from the Arnotts of withdrawing themselves from the Vineyard covering completely, establishing a fully independent prototype church for the \u201cfifth [charismatic] wave.\u201d Key members of this movement signed on to a \u201cReformer\u2019s pledge,\u201d which was a conciliatory articulation of Wagner\u2019s \u201cdominionist\u201d position in response to the criticism that had been leveled at it from within the charismatic and house-church movements.[48]<\/a> Though not by name, the pledge itself obliquely mentioned the Reconstructionist movement, underlining the putative dependence of this \u201creform\u201d movement on dominion theology and the Reconstructionists that went before it.<\/p>\n

Summary and Concluding Remarks<\/h3>\n

We have seen that the movement seeded by Rushdoony\u00a0was firmly established on the theonomical foundation of Bahnsen. With the economic and media expertise of North, a precocious and militant form of dominionism\u00a0generated an enormous literary output that caused the movement to grow rapidly and extend its influence far beyond its Reformed\u00a0roots. It became established within mainstream evangelicalism\u00a0and was rather unexpectedly included in the Pentecostal\u00a0and charismatic movements. Though the movement had split into factions, this diversification worked in its favor, and the hostility was generally short-lived. None of the main organizations are in an adversarial relation, and numerous hubs have remained easily recognizable as Reconstructionist, even if that terminology has fallen out of favor. Many other movements incorporated dominionist ideas during this period (we list some of these shortly.) The central conception remained that the gospel is relevant and necessary in every sphere of human life; it is the motivation, modus operandi<\/em>, and unifying principle of the diverse conceptions of dominion theology now found within this broad and theologically diverse network. Rushdoony\u2019s ideas influenced key leaders within all these movements, whom, although they did not share his Calvinism, imported <\/a>his ideas whilst, like Wagner, distanced themselves from \u201cextremism\u201d by never publicly acknowledging the Reconstructionist influence.[49]<\/a><\/p>\n

However, the controversy surrounding Rushdoony\u00a0and his ideas has meant he has basically gone unacknowledged by those he inspired as they absorbed and morphed dominionism. Dominionism might now be better described as a genus<\/em> and the associated terms (Reconstructionist, post-millennialist, dominionist, theonomist, Kingdom Now, Business as a Mission, Discipling Nations, New Apostolic Age, Christian nationalism, and some fellow travelers within the Hamonite prophetic movement) as species<\/em>. The days of evangelical\u00a0movements being politically neutral and considering sociopolitical involvement \u201cunimportant\u201d were largely ended during this period.[50]<\/a> A whole new political consciousness amongst the evangelicals was born. The next chapter examines the extended and ferocious critiques of this newfound political consciousness amongst evangelicals and investigates why many Christians preferred to distance themselves, publicly at least, from dominonism.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 151, 157.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Rushdoony\u2019s introduction to the first edition was written in October 1971. The publication was delayed until 1977 owing to \u201cfactors beyond Bahnsen\u2019s control\u201d (North and DeMar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, xiii). With the later acrimonious split in the Reconstructionist movement (we consider this shortly), some initially asserted that it was Bahnsen, rather than Rushdoony, that first articulated theonomy\u00a0(Rushdoony\u2019s Institutes<\/em> were not published until 1973.) However, the fact that Rushdoony was invited to write the foreword by Bahnsen\u00a0strongly suggests he was inspired by Rushdoony\u2019s development of Van Til. Rushdoony and Bahnsen\u00a0also reconciled quickly after the initial split when Bahnsen\u00a0left with North.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Rushdoony, \u201cForeword\u201d in Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics<\/em>, vii\u2013ix.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics<\/em>, 39\u201388.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics<\/em>, xv.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics<\/em>, 127. Emphasis original.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics<\/em>, 46.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> McVicar, Rushdoony<\/em>, 163; Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics<\/em>, xiv.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> North, Theonomy<\/em>, xiii\u2013xiv; McVicar, Rushdoony<\/em>, 160.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Stein and Bahnsen, \u201cGreat Debate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> It is notable that most of this material is now available free of charge: https:\/\/www. cmfnow.com\/.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Bahnsen, \u201cAuburn Avenue Controversy,\u201d 433.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> This was discussed at length by Otis in Danger in the Camp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Otis, Danger in the Camp<\/em>, 431\u201351.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Jordan, \u201cTheocratic Critique of Theonomy,\u201d para. 1. As noted earlier, Cope\u00a0argues for this more moderate position, and convincingly so. The real issue between the positions was the status of the penal sanctions, especially those mandating public execution. The strict theonomists argued for a literal application, an obviously controversial position.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Luther\u00a0initially described the book of James an \u201cepistle of straw\u201d in his translation of the Bible, viewing it as contradicting sola fide (\u201cthrough faith alone\u201d) and had relegated it to an appendix. However, after 1537, he removed this comment from his preface, suggesting he had come to see the matter differently. It is worth noting that he had also moved Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation to the same appendix, viewing the content and authorship as contested. Modern Lutherans have accepted these books as canonical.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> North and DeMar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, xiii. North passed away in 2022, aged eighty. His website (https:\/\/www.garynorth.com\/) is still active and maintained by some associates. It is an excellent resource for getting access to primary source material regarding Reconstructionism; he graciously replied to me when I found a dead link to his \u201cfree materials\u201d when I was writing the thesis upon which this book is based.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Clarkson, \u201cChristian Reconstructionism,\u201d entire issue. (Note this is not<\/em> the British satirical Public Eye<\/em> magazine but an American research journal.)<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> North et al., Theology of Christian Resistance <\/em>and Tactics of Christian Resistance<\/em>; North, Backward, Christian Soldiers?<\/em>, 190.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> North, Theonomy<\/em>, xvi.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> North and DeMar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, xvii. He had come to this conclusion after interning for Senator Ron Paul. He viewed the inertia of national politics so large that change could only come from the grassroots.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 182\u201387.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> North was far more polyvalent than Rushdoony\u00a0when it came to engaging with the evangelical Christian world outside of Presbyterianism, going so far as to be involved with charismatics and Pentecostals. Rushdoony had been extremely critical of charismatic Christianity when he had written his Institutes<\/em> but later joined North ministering to these groups as the influence of Reconstructionism\u00a0grew.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 192\u201394.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Rushdoony, \u201cChristian Reconstruction as a Movement,\u201d 9.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Chilton, \u201cEcclesiastical Megalomania,\u201d para. 5.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> With the coming and passing of the financial apocalypse predicted by North with Y2K, the more extreme survivalist rhetoric and Tyler extremism was quietly buried as he closed the ICE in 2001, though all its publications remain accessible at no cost at https:\/\/www.garynorth.com\/freebooks\/sidefrm2.htm. McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 220\u201321; House and Ice, Dominion Theology<\/em>, 18\u201319, 351\u201352.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Rushdoony et al., \u201cTribute to RJ Rushdoony.\u201d<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 221; American Vision is found at https:\/\/ americanvision.org\/.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> North, \u201cReconstructionist Renewal,\u201d 2.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> North, Unholy Spirits<\/em>, 12.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> McVicar, Rushdoony<\/em>, 201.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Dobson et al., Fundamentalist Phenomenon<\/em>, 186\u2013223. A succinct presentation regarding the Schaeffers is given by Edgar in \u201cFrancis Schaeffer.\u201d As both Edgar and Bahnsen\u00a0note, Schaeffer\u2019s skill was to \u201ctranslate every important theological concept into the vernacular\u201d rather than in the academic rigor of his work; he did not write for the academy but for the laypeople. L\u2019Abri<\/em> was founded by him and his wife in 1955 as an experiment in communal living for the philosophical and religious pilgrims of the era, sitting intellectually somewhere between informal colleges and Christian communities. There are still eleven sites around the world: https:\/\/labri.org\/.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> However, Schaeffer never publicly acknowledged this, perhaps aware of the political and sectarian implications of doing so, though he was acknowledged by many important members of the Reconstructionist movement as doing \u201cyeoman\u2019s service\u201d for the cause (North, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, xiii). As Bahnsen\u00a0critiques in his Presuppositional Apologetics<\/em>, 241\u201360, Schaeffer\u2019s presuppositionalism was also qualitatively distinct from Van Til, owing far more to evidentialism than Van Tillianism.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 173.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> The anti-abortion Whatever Happened to the Human Race <\/em>adaptation of the elder Schaeffer\u2019s book of the same name was particularly influential in generating activism amongst newly politicized evangelicals.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 173\u201376. Franky suffered an existential crisis in the 1990s and retreated from his evangelical conservatism, offering public repentance for his previous radicalism. He tells his story in numerous works as seen in this New York Times<\/em> profile: \u201cTo millions of evangelical Christians, the Schaeffer name is royal, and Frank is the reluctant, wayward, traitorous prince. His crime is not financial profligacy, like some pastors\u2019 sons, but turning his back on Christian conservatives\u201d (Oppenheimer, \u201cSon of Evangelical Royalty,\u201d para. 2).<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Joyner, Power to Change the World<\/em>, loc. 47; Johnson and Joyner, \u201cAzusa Now Livestream 04.09.2016.\u201d<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> The relation between Kenneth Hagin\u00a0and the denominational Pentecostal\u00a0movements was a tense one, though many American Pentecostals had worked with Hagin in his early days. As a \u201cnew wineskin,\u201d Hagin eventually founded Rhema\u00a0Bible College, which is the strongest independent international Bible college today. Hagin also heavily influenced a wing of the emerging prophetic movement of Bill Hamon. He was also foundational to ministries such as Kenneth Copeland Ministries\u00a0and the River Church movement under Dr. Rodney Howard Browne. See also Hamon, Eternal Church<\/em>, 239\u201361.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Martin, \u201cFrom Pre- to Postmodernity,\u201d 107.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Boonke, Extra Impact<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Cope, Old Testament Template<\/em>, 21\u201323. Where \u201cChristianized\u201d was defined as evangelical and attendance was mid-week as well as Sunday to distinguish it from traditional and formal attendance. It is also not without significance that radical Islam\u00a0considers Texas to be \u201cground zero\u201d in their colonization of the United States (Anderson, \u201cCongressmen Call Texas \u2018Ground Zero\u2019\u201d).<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Cope, Old Testament Template<\/em>, 23.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> McVicar, Christian Reconstruction<\/em>, 200.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> Wagner, Dominion!<\/em>, 12\u201317.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> Wagner, On Earth<\/em>, 7.<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Wagner, On Earth<\/em>, 8.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> Wagner et al., Reformer\u2019s Pledge<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> \u201cNever\u201d may be too strong an adjective here, but only marginally so. A full-length book by a charismatic leader (Hamon, Eternal Church<\/em>) purporting to be a modern history of the church gave Reconstructionism\u00a0a single sentence; another book by a group of charismatic leaders on the imperative for societal reform (Wagner, Reformer\u2019s Pledge<\/em>) gave a single obfuscated reference to the movement.<\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> Though I argue in my Politics<\/em> that a dangerous reaction to partisan political involvement amongst believers that sometimes places party before Christian principle is to slip back into a sophisticated, spiritualized, politically agnostic indifference that is of equivalent, if not, greater danger because of its reasoned basis. In particular, many British evangelicals find US Christian support for Trump, or right-wing conservatism generally, unacceptable. This, as I argue in my Politics<\/em>, reflects the European addiction to socialism, which permeates the big government models of Europe.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
Emergence<\/a><\/div>\n
Critiques<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Dominionist Movement Overview The purpose of this chapter is to identify the first generation of major thinkers within the dominionist movement founded by Rushdoony\u00a0and how their collective intellectual force caused a paradigm shift within conservative evangelical\u00a0Christianity. This represented perhaps the greatest reorientation of the conservative church in its history. Reconstructionism Three appendices to Rushdoony\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1624,"parent":1636,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1683","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1683","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1683"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1683\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1740,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1683\/revisions\/1740"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1636"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}