For a number of years, I worked closely with the Chalcedon Foundation, mostly as a writer and speaker, but also serving on the board of directors. This has been in the main, a very positive experience. I have had the opportunity to work with some very talented and articulate men committed to a comprehensive Biblical worldview. They are trying the lay the intellectual foundation for the resurgence of Christian civilization. In my work, I have concentrated on the need for godly men to learn how to live self-governed lives under God, leading their families, training their children and working diligently at their callings. I have also focused on the need for reformation in the church. And as a result, I have become fairly well known as (dire music here) a “Reconstructionist!”

However, to be perfectly honest, I always have been a less than happy with that term. On more than one occasion, I have written and published essays explaining why I am NOT a Reconstructionist because frankly I am tired of having to define my theology every time the subject comes up. No, I do NOT believe in salvation by keeping the Law (that’s heresy!). No, I do not believe that the church should run the state. No, I do not believe in Christians “taking over” the civil government and imposing Old Testament Law by top-down, bureaucratic imposition. No, I do NOT believe in equipping the State with a secret police to peep into people’s bedrooms. No, I do NOT think politics is the be all and end all of social change. No matter that, NO “Reconstructionist” believes any of the above, the reality is that many, many people THINK that’s what a Reconstruction believes. And as a result, the term has a lot of excess baggage that gets in the way of genuine reformation.

I simply affirm that EVERY area of life must be submitted to King Jesus. I do not pretend to have all the implications worked out yet of HOW we are to do this, but I do believe they CAN be worked out, and that the total revelation of God in His Word is sufficient to do so. Yes, I do believe, as did Calvin in Geneva, in a sovereign God who is working out His will in time and space. Yes, I do believe, as did George Gillespie, Scottish delegate to the Westminster Assembly (as well as the New England Puritans), that the civil magistrate ought to pay more attention to the Law of God. Yes, I do believe, as did Hodge, Warfield and Machen at Old Princeton Seminary, in the victory of God’s people in time, as well as eternity. Yes, I do believe, as Cornelius Van Til taught at Westminster Seminary, that there is no neutrality. Furthermore, I am prepared to spend my life working on understanding how all these ideas come together to form a comprehensive system of Christian ethics and practical instruction.

I have come to see that Christian “reconstruction” is really more of a task, rather than a “movement” i.e., the goal is to reform the family, church and yes, even the state to reflect Biblical principles in every area of life. It was always interesting to me that Rushdoony, the oft cited “father” of Christian Reconstruction, could point to such people as the Salvation Army, or Arminian Christian schools and in some cases, even out-right antinomians who were doing some sort of charitable work and say with pride, “they are doing the work of Christian reconstruction.” How could Rush consider people who don’t share ANY of the theological distinctives of historic Reformed theology as “Reconstructionists?” But from one perspective, his comments make good sense. In his view, ANY Christian working to extend the kingdom, despite whatever shortcomings in their theology, IS working at the serious task of rebuilding Christian civilization and hence a “Reconstructionist.”

But the term itself is so open to misunderstanding that I think it time to give it a decent burial. By giving this goal a name, and then calling it a “movement,” it also gave some people the idea that this was something new. And if it is “new” then there is probably something seriously wrong with it! However, in reality, I suspect that there is no “movement” per se. From my experience, one could divide “Reconstructionists” roughly into three camps. One group consists of those who are deeply committed to their churches but want Biblical Christianity to have a wider influence in our culture. They read books, essays and articles from a variety of sources that they find useful to their work, life and ministry. But they are NOT particularly committed to any “Reconstructionist” institution and have little or no loyalty to a “movement.” In fact, these people are quite eclectic in their theology, many being reformed only to a slight degree.

There is a second, much smaller group of men and women who self-consciously identify themselves as “Reconstructionists” but they probably number less than a very few thousand people in America. Such people are often isolated from a good local church (for understandable reasons), are fairly reformed, but only in as far as it supports their ideology. Often, they are Christians concerned with moral decay and are activists of some sort (or at least WANT to be activists!).

Finally, a third group of people latches onto Christian Reconstruction because at heart they are ecclesiastical anarchists. They do not WANT to be in submission to any church or any other institution. One might say that these people are on the fringe of Christianity, and one might even suggest that at least some of them probably have deeply-rooted psychological problems. These are the survivalists, the tax protestors, the conspiracy nuts, etc. They like Christian Reconstruction because it gives them a theology for rebellion; i.e., Rushdoony, North, Chilton, etc., were all brilliant at exposing the superficiality of modern broad evangelicalism, the tyranny of the modern humanist state, etc. and called for reformation of both. These people like the criticisms because it justifies the fact that they cannot get along with anyone. They are happy in their autonomy, satisfied with the little house-church of two or three families (or just themselves!) and will stay that way for the rest of their lives. It can even be argued that this third group is at least partially responsible for giving “Reconstructionism” its bad name. Personally, their bizarre views, abysmal relationship skills, acerbic writings, constant criticism, and ecclesiastical autonomy all convinced me that these are not people with whom I want to be associated.

Furthermore, all the talk about “dominion” invariably gives many Christians concern that the goal of Christian Reconstruction is political or social revolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. My goal has always been to simply work out the consistent implications of our Reformed heritage. I believe that God will GRANT victory in time, as well as eternity. Hence, “dominion” comes, not through revolution, but rather through reformation, as Christians learn how to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

There is nothing in my theology or views that is not either explicitly or implicitly required in the Westminster Standards. Granted, there are “strands” of “Reconstruction” that have their five-point covenant model, or a psychedelic free association type of hermeneutic. And sadly, as mentioned above, there are well known personalities that are certainly on the fringe of good mental health. But since I reject these ideas, (and do not associate with those people) why should I have to defend myself against being lumped in with them?

Yes, I am proud and honored to have worked with R. J. Rushdoony in the last few years of his life. He was a brilliant man whose understanding of history and theology, as well as his ethnic heritage gives him a unique perspective on American history. Yet, as much as I appreciate and respect Rush, I do not agree with some aspects of his theology (e.g., his view on the dietary laws). And I place much greater emphasis on the role of the church than he traditionally did (not a criticism, no man has time to do ALL the work that has to be done). Most people don’t realize that Rushdoony used to be a widely popular guest lecturer at various Reformed seminaries until fairly recently. Twenty years ago, few people saw him or his views as controversial (until certain men with obnoxious personality disorder poisoned the well).

Having worked as an “insider” at Chalcedon for several years, I know they certainly do not see themselves, as offering something “new” or “revolutionary.” To the contrary, they see their task as essentially being a theological think-tank committed to serving the entire church by working out the intellectual and philosophical implications of a consistently Reformed world and life view. One may not always agree with the WAY they work out those implications, but at least they are trying!

Can anyone deny that the best features of Western civilization were derived from a Christian worldview? Can anyone deny that our Christian heritage has been undermined and destroyed? Can anyone deny that the culture, because of apostasy and heresy, is sliding into destruction as a direct result? Can anyone deny that Christians have a God given task to preach the word and disciple the nations? Can anyone deny that God will bless the preaching of His Word? In other places, I have made the statement that even if the rest of the church rejects the particular solutions that people like Chalcedon are offering, their ministry will have been a success if they at least get Christians THINKING about these areas of life from a consistent, Biblical perspective.

My point here is that I do not think we need to fight over “names.” I would far prefer to be known as “Reformed” than “Reconstructionist.” The word “Reformed” communicates everything I believe and teach, without leading us into other areas that are just not relevant. To be “Reformed” means to believe those doctrines hammered out during the high-water mark of Christian scholarship in the century following the Reformation. To be “Reformed” means to take the Bible seriously, and see God’s rule over every area of life. To be “Reformed” simply means to be committed to Biblical authority. And isn’t that enough?

Hence, there is nothing uniquely “Reconstructionist” about my theology or the churches I have pastored. I have written, lectured and preached on the dangers of pietism, antinomianism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, etc. and attempted to offer a thoroughly Biblical alternative. I have emphasized the three uses of the Law (as detailed in the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Standards). By God’s grace I have tried to build on the work of the Reformers and become consistent with the presuppositions inherent within the great Reformation creeds. I have encouraged, exhorted and admonished my brother pastors to be consistent with THEIR confession of faith. And in all this, there was nothing really “new” and certainly nothing “revolutionary.” Calvin, Knox, Gillespie, Rutherford, Mather and Cotton, et. al., all said it first and better; my goal is to simply say it say it again to a new generation.

Hence, I am content to call myself “Reformed.” I have no other agenda in my life or ministry but simply to be consistent with our Reformed heritage. Granted, the term “Reconstructionist” will undoubtedly haunt me for the rest of my life. But as far as I can, I want now to distance myself from the term so I can focus on what is important without unnecessary baggage. Surely, it is time to stop arguing about terms and get on with the real task of discipling the nations?