What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism
This is the first critical history of Christian Reconstruction and its founder and champion, theologian and activist Rousas John Rushdoony (1916–2001). Drawing on exclusive access to Rushdoony's personal papers and extensive correspondence, Michael J. McVicar demonstrates the considerable role Reconstructionism played in the development of the radical Christian Right and an American theocratic agenda. As a religious movement, Reconstructionism aims at nothing less than "reconstructing" individuals through a form of Christian governance that, if implemented in the lives of U.S. citizens, would fundamentally alter the shape of American society.McVicar examines Rushdoony's career and traces Reconstructionism as it grew from a grassroots, populist movement in the 1960s to its height of popularity in the 1970s and 1980s. He reveals the movement's galvanizing role in the development of political conspiracy theories and survivalism, libertarianism and antistatism, and educational reform and homeschooling. The book demonstrates how these issues have retained and in many cases gained potency for conservative Christians to the present day, despite the decline of the movement itself beginning in the 1990s. McVicar contends that Christian Reconstruction has contributed significantly to how certain forms of religiosity have become central, and now familiar, aspects of an often controversial conservative revolution in America.
317 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 10, 2015
9 people are currently reading
220 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
April 24, 2015
A short review here will have to suffice. I read this book in order to submit an extended review of it to Books & Culture, which I will do shortly. The short review is that this book was a detailed history of the rise of reconstructionism, by someone not himself a reconstructionist, and was surprisingly free of screeching.
June 8, 2020
O livro de McVicar é possivelmente a melhor introdução acadêmica ao movimento reconstrucionista e sua influência indireta mas real sobre a direita cristã que surgiu após a década de 70 nos Estados Unidos. McVicar apresenta todo o contexto social (a liberalização dos costumes, a intervenção crescente do Estado na época da Guerra Fria, etc.) e religioso (o fundamentalismo evangélico, o evangelicalismo televisivo e os movimentos de base dos subúrbios americanos) que estiveram entrelaçados (seja como substrato, seja como objeto de oposição) no surgimento do reconstrucionismo de Rousas J. Rushdoony.
McVicar não se contenta com o retrato de Rushdoony como um aiatolá reformado; pelo contrário, mostra, ao longo da obra, as várias facetas da personalidade do teólogo: um homem piedoso e prestativo mas rígido em suas visões sociais; um intelectual que jamais se adequou às exigências da academia, mas que se entristecia justificadamente porque muitos nomes prominentes na intelectualidade conservadora americana valiam-se de suas ideias, sem o devido reconhecimento.
A obra é amplamente fundamentada em bibliografia primária e secundária; e o autor teve acesso, por meio dos familiares e herdeiros de Rushdoony, a todo acervo pessoal do teólogo (cartas, manuscritos, diários e até álbuns de fotografia). Realmente, não sei se McVicar desconhece -- conforme o acusaram -- as complexidades teológicas inerentes ao pensamento de Rushdoony. Claro, embora haja um ocasional deslize ou classificação equivocada (ele fala, de passagem, sobre a teologia (sic) de Dooyeweerd), o autor visivelmente apreendeu os elementos centrais e muitas nuances das análises teológicas de Rushdoony.
McVicar não se contenta com o retrato de Rushdoony como um aiatolá reformado; pelo contrário, mostra, ao longo da obra, as várias facetas da personalidade do teólogo: um homem piedoso e prestativo mas rígido em suas visões sociais; um intelectual que jamais se adequou às exigências da academia, mas que se entristecia justificadamente porque muitos nomes prominentes na intelectualidade conservadora americana valiam-se de suas ideias, sem o devido reconhecimento.
A obra é amplamente fundamentada em bibliografia primária e secundária; e o autor teve acesso, por meio dos familiares e herdeiros de Rushdoony, a todo acervo pessoal do teólogo (cartas, manuscritos, diários e até álbuns de fotografia). Realmente, não sei se McVicar desconhece -- conforme o acusaram -- as complexidades teológicas inerentes ao pensamento de Rushdoony. Claro, embora haja um ocasional deslize ou classificação equivocada (ele fala, de passagem, sobre a teologia (sic) de Dooyeweerd), o autor visivelmente apreendeu os elementos centrais e muitas nuances das análises teológicas de Rushdoony.
December 27, 2021
Theonomy. Christian Reconstruction. Tyler, Texas. Institutes of Biblical Law.
These words bring a lot of emotions for a lot of people, both positive and negative, probably mostly negative for most Evangelicals, possibly for most modern Reformed people, and definitely for non-Christians. Since that's the case, I will just lay my own baggage on the table. My homeschooling mom taught me that dominion was a good thing, that taking the culture for Christ was a good thing, and that the Old Testament was completely true. The modern Evangelical aversion to the Law had to be taught me in college. Also, in college I read John Frame and James Jordan and got a little taste of some of the good of theonomy, though with warnings echoed by Doug Wilson. Then, when I went in a more leftist direction, I was very unsympathetic to Rushdoony and theonomy, and even when I came back to the right, I had and perhaps still have a tendency to dismiss them as innovators and cranks while taking some of their occasional perceptiveness on single-point issues such as the prison system. I also come into this having seen debates about Van Til, having been taught through the Davenant Institute that he represents a break with the Reformed tradition and thus claims too much innovation and thus is of limited value. I also debated some Van Tilians and it all felt pre-programmed and closed-mind.
There is a lot of baggage there, so there is both a kind of fascination with someone who could clearly write well and a kind of youthful love for the idea that the law could be much simpler and society could be reworked according to the Old Testament. It's kind of a utopian phase of one sort. And then there's my more recent conventional response.
This book is a very careful bit of historical work by a remarkably even-handed and objective unbeliever who, in a short summary sentence, shows that Rushdoony was a remarkable man who was purposefully sidelined by both the mainstream culture and consciously by the Evangelical mainstream culture. Indeed, it is an act of nothing less than boundary policing, the kind of thing that has basically happened to Douglas Wilson, my very own pastor. It's been so successful that even people who have been influenced by him walked him back. That does, indeed, make me sympathetic to the man, especially coming out of the early 20th century when fundamentalism was more backwater and needed more sophisticated men like Rushdoony.
And Rushdoony was sophisticated. He was incredibly smart, read a book a day according to legend, and was an impeccable debater. The best thing about this book is that it informs kids like me who were homeschooled that perhaps we owe a lot to this man for speaking up for case after case for homeschoolers, whether of Protestant, Catholic, or any religious stripe.
Now, a few important fascinating aspects to the book:
* McVicar rightly passes over the first thirty years of Rushdoony's life. Indeed, Rushdoony's divorce is treated very delicately, and Rushdoony's personal life is portrayed as intensely sweet. Obviously we don't know what happened, but for those who want to cast the first stone, read this, affirmed by his children: https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/rousas...
* McVicar places Rushdoony against the emerging scene of politics. Rushdoony was kind of a peer of men like William Buckley and other leading lights in the growing conservative movement, but failed to find work in that field because he felt, perhaps because of Vantilian convictions, that he could not work with non-Christians or Roman Catholics. He even clashed with Richard Weaver of Ideas-Have-Consequences fame. He also represents, along with his son, the turning of Evangelical Christians to libertarian economics, such as those promoted by Hayek, Von Mises, and Rothbard. In other words, he really is a part of the story of the Christian religious right. Indeed, Gary North's working for Ron Paul and helping work on the "Ron Paul curriculum" shows that Rushdoony's influence actually made it national; Ron Paul is really where it all ends up cashing out on the ground.
* McVicar also intriguingly places him alongside the housewife movement and the kinds of things that preceded homeschoolers. When he was ousted from the political think tanks, he turned to the remnant of Christians and encouraged the rejuvenation of America beginning with families. Indeed, part of the reason for the split from the Tyler Texas folks was that they put more focus on the church than on the family.
* Speaking of which, the chapters on Tyler Texas is definitely the most difficult to read, because it's so very close in some respects to what we are trying to do in Moscow, Idaho. Rushdoony essentially split from North and their relationship was never healed because of a weird James Jordan interpretation of the passover (at least that was the trigger) and because of Gary North's enormous ego. It is possible that everyone was in sin, but the book actually doesn't have any smoking gun on Rushdoony being in the wrong; we do have that evidence for Gary North who showed his father's nakedness. Douglas Wilson was completely prophetic whenever he wrote this pamphlet: https://reconstructionists.blogspot.com/ I don't know how much the grievances against the church can be believed though: often these situations are very sinful, and speaking to them from a distance is foolish.
* The more fascinating part of this book is that it clearly places Rushdoony in the genealogy of the religious right coalition. Rushdoony famously made Ronald Reagan cry after he argued against the passing of a law that would give the government more legal leeway. Again, Rushdoony comes off really well compared even to such greats as Schaeffer and his son, Howard Phillips (founder of the Constitution party), Falwell, and all the other men that he knew and sometimes clashed with. Interestingly, Rushdoony seems to have had some intimacy with Schaeffer and a lot of uncredited influence. Again, it's hard to say from here. He then clashed with Carl F.H. Henry, the editor of Christianity Today who was explicitly trying to forge a path between fundamentalism and liberalism. It really makes you realize that there were no good old days for BigEvaTM: there were problems baked in from the start. At any rate, CT and other media outlets worked hard to marginalize Rushdoony and so even though he particpiated heavily in the movement early on, he was air-brushed out because of where Evangelicalism was at the time.
So in so many ways, I realized that I am and remain and remain proud of the heritage I didn't know I had. Rushdoony brought back the Old Testament to popular consideration and in many ways, the mainstream Reformed world has accepted that; perhaps without Rushdoony there would be no N.T. Wright, and there certainly would be no James Jordan or Leithart. I also really do owe him the favor of bringing back dominion into Christian discourse. Even postmillennialism and preterism were passed to me through Douglas Wilson who changed his mind about eschatology reading a David Chilton book (and it was the first in his series of paradigm changes). Finally, he basically single-handedly saved homeschooling in America, and no matter the negative things that he or Tyler did, this has been a life-saver to me and to millions of families.
And the negative baggage. I can't get around this aspect of the man, and I'll just admit that my baggage makes me think this: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." (Titus 3:9-11). Now I think we need to have more fights about the law and about the Old Testament. But I think the biggest negative feature of Rushdoony's (and really Van Til's) legacy is the tendency to accuse his opponents of being thoroughly compromised and implicitly paving the way for the systematic megalomania of his followers, including my own intellectual father James Jordan. The Institutes of the Biblical Law makes you feel like you have a plan for overturning the current situation rather than merely bearing witness against the culture. At any rate, I don't think being excited about intellectual disputes is a healthy thing to think about.
Do not misread what I am saying. Paul says there must be fights so that the genuine ones will appear, and we need to have a devil-may-care attitude whenever we find real cultural rot within the church. I am writing this in No Quarter November and I am excited about it. But a lot of young men (like me) get excited about Calvinism, or Theonomy, or Van Til, or Federal Vision Dark, or Reformed Irenicism, or Natural Law, or whatever. It's mostly not profitable and it's tied in some ways to Rushdoony.
I am sure that I would have made the same mistakes as Rushdoony at the time. I mean, the presbyterians were still just leaving liberalism and that American Christianity was compromised in so many ways. So Rushdoony was a prophet, and the real lesson one takes away are two things:
1) I will try harder than ever never to repeat a rumor and to be careful not to spread false information. I have in the past, but the destructiveness it did to Tyler is sad.
2) Even when I am right about a lot of things, it is so easy to spend too much time on matters of controversy rather than having something positive to aim for. Reading Jim Wilson's bio at the same time is revealing. Rushdoony was a believer, and when I look in the mirror I see Rushdoony. But we all need to try to be more like Jim Wilson because that's the better legacy. (But I still am going to go and read theology books because I enjoy it.)
These words bring a lot of emotions for a lot of people, both positive and negative, probably mostly negative for most Evangelicals, possibly for most modern Reformed people, and definitely for non-Christians. Since that's the case, I will just lay my own baggage on the table. My homeschooling mom taught me that dominion was a good thing, that taking the culture for Christ was a good thing, and that the Old Testament was completely true. The modern Evangelical aversion to the Law had to be taught me in college. Also, in college I read John Frame and James Jordan and got a little taste of some of the good of theonomy, though with warnings echoed by Doug Wilson. Then, when I went in a more leftist direction, I was very unsympathetic to Rushdoony and theonomy, and even when I came back to the right, I had and perhaps still have a tendency to dismiss them as innovators and cranks while taking some of their occasional perceptiveness on single-point issues such as the prison system. I also come into this having seen debates about Van Til, having been taught through the Davenant Institute that he represents a break with the Reformed tradition and thus claims too much innovation and thus is of limited value. I also debated some Van Tilians and it all felt pre-programmed and closed-mind.
There is a lot of baggage there, so there is both a kind of fascination with someone who could clearly write well and a kind of youthful love for the idea that the law could be much simpler and society could be reworked according to the Old Testament. It's kind of a utopian phase of one sort. And then there's my more recent conventional response.
This book is a very careful bit of historical work by a remarkably even-handed and objective unbeliever who, in a short summary sentence, shows that Rushdoony was a remarkable man who was purposefully sidelined by both the mainstream culture and consciously by the Evangelical mainstream culture. Indeed, it is an act of nothing less than boundary policing, the kind of thing that has basically happened to Douglas Wilson, my very own pastor. It's been so successful that even people who have been influenced by him walked him back. That does, indeed, make me sympathetic to the man, especially coming out of the early 20th century when fundamentalism was more backwater and needed more sophisticated men like Rushdoony.
And Rushdoony was sophisticated. He was incredibly smart, read a book a day according to legend, and was an impeccable debater. The best thing about this book is that it informs kids like me who were homeschooled that perhaps we owe a lot to this man for speaking up for case after case for homeschoolers, whether of Protestant, Catholic, or any religious stripe.
Now, a few important fascinating aspects to the book:
* McVicar rightly passes over the first thirty years of Rushdoony's life. Indeed, Rushdoony's divorce is treated very delicately, and Rushdoony's personal life is portrayed as intensely sweet. Obviously we don't know what happened, but for those who want to cast the first stone, read this, affirmed by his children: https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/rousas...
* McVicar places Rushdoony against the emerging scene of politics. Rushdoony was kind of a peer of men like William Buckley and other leading lights in the growing conservative movement, but failed to find work in that field because he felt, perhaps because of Vantilian convictions, that he could not work with non-Christians or Roman Catholics. He even clashed with Richard Weaver of Ideas-Have-Consequences fame. He also represents, along with his son, the turning of Evangelical Christians to libertarian economics, such as those promoted by Hayek, Von Mises, and Rothbard. In other words, he really is a part of the story of the Christian religious right. Indeed, Gary North's working for Ron Paul and helping work on the "Ron Paul curriculum" shows that Rushdoony's influence actually made it national; Ron Paul is really where it all ends up cashing out on the ground.
* McVicar also intriguingly places him alongside the housewife movement and the kinds of things that preceded homeschoolers. When he was ousted from the political think tanks, he turned to the remnant of Christians and encouraged the rejuvenation of America beginning with families. Indeed, part of the reason for the split from the Tyler Texas folks was that they put more focus on the church than on the family.
* Speaking of which, the chapters on Tyler Texas is definitely the most difficult to read, because it's so very close in some respects to what we are trying to do in Moscow, Idaho. Rushdoony essentially split from North and their relationship was never healed because of a weird James Jordan interpretation of the passover (at least that was the trigger) and because of Gary North's enormous ego. It is possible that everyone was in sin, but the book actually doesn't have any smoking gun on Rushdoony being in the wrong; we do have that evidence for Gary North who showed his father's nakedness. Douglas Wilson was completely prophetic whenever he wrote this pamphlet: https://reconstructionists.blogspot.com/ I don't know how much the grievances against the church can be believed though: often these situations are very sinful, and speaking to them from a distance is foolish.
* The more fascinating part of this book is that it clearly places Rushdoony in the genealogy of the religious right coalition. Rushdoony famously made Ronald Reagan cry after he argued against the passing of a law that would give the government more legal leeway. Again, Rushdoony comes off really well compared even to such greats as Schaeffer and his son, Howard Phillips (founder of the Constitution party), Falwell, and all the other men that he knew and sometimes clashed with. Interestingly, Rushdoony seems to have had some intimacy with Schaeffer and a lot of uncredited influence. Again, it's hard to say from here. He then clashed with Carl F.H. Henry, the editor of Christianity Today who was explicitly trying to forge a path between fundamentalism and liberalism. It really makes you realize that there were no good old days for BigEvaTM: there were problems baked in from the start. At any rate, CT and other media outlets worked hard to marginalize Rushdoony and so even though he particpiated heavily in the movement early on, he was air-brushed out because of where Evangelicalism was at the time.
So in so many ways, I realized that I am and remain and remain proud of the heritage I didn't know I had. Rushdoony brought back the Old Testament to popular consideration and in many ways, the mainstream Reformed world has accepted that; perhaps without Rushdoony there would be no N.T. Wright, and there certainly would be no James Jordan or Leithart. I also really do owe him the favor of bringing back dominion into Christian discourse. Even postmillennialism and preterism were passed to me through Douglas Wilson who changed his mind about eschatology reading a David Chilton book (and it was the first in his series of paradigm changes). Finally, he basically single-handedly saved homeschooling in America, and no matter the negative things that he or Tyler did, this has been a life-saver to me and to millions of families.
And the negative baggage. I can't get around this aspect of the man, and I'll just admit that my baggage makes me think this: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." (Titus 3:9-11). Now I think we need to have more fights about the law and about the Old Testament. But I think the biggest negative feature of Rushdoony's (and really Van Til's) legacy is the tendency to accuse his opponents of being thoroughly compromised and implicitly paving the way for the systematic megalomania of his followers, including my own intellectual father James Jordan. The Institutes of the Biblical Law makes you feel like you have a plan for overturning the current situation rather than merely bearing witness against the culture. At any rate, I don't think being excited about intellectual disputes is a healthy thing to think about.
Do not misread what I am saying. Paul says there must be fights so that the genuine ones will appear, and we need to have a devil-may-care attitude whenever we find real cultural rot within the church. I am writing this in No Quarter November and I am excited about it. But a lot of young men (like me) get excited about Calvinism, or Theonomy, or Van Til, or Federal Vision Dark, or Reformed Irenicism, or Natural Law, or whatever. It's mostly not profitable and it's tied in some ways to Rushdoony.
I am sure that I would have made the same mistakes as Rushdoony at the time. I mean, the presbyterians were still just leaving liberalism and that American Christianity was compromised in so many ways. So Rushdoony was a prophet, and the real lesson one takes away are two things:
1) I will try harder than ever never to repeat a rumor and to be careful not to spread false information. I have in the past, but the destructiveness it did to Tyler is sad.
2) Even when I am right about a lot of things, it is so easy to spend too much time on matters of controversy rather than having something positive to aim for. Reading Jim Wilson's bio at the same time is revealing. Rushdoony was a believer, and when I look in the mirror I see Rushdoony. But we all need to try to be more like Jim Wilson because that's the better legacy. (But I still am going to go and read theology books because I enjoy it.)
February 25, 2016
The best aspects of this book are the stories and the personal correspondence that McVicar uncovers. Some of these I had heard before, but only in a piecemeal fashion. This book certainly has contributed to a better understanding of the life of Rushdoony and the Christian Reconstruction movement (and of the broader conservative movement of the 20th century). It is, to my knowledge, the only well researched biography of R.J. Rushdoony, and it has great worth for that fact. His handling of the relationships and conflicts during Rushdoony's life seem rather fair and insightful.
On the other hand, I think McVicar fails (at times) to rightly communicate what Rushdoony taught. He certainly has done a better job than some writers (which isn't saying much), and at times he hits the nail right on the head, but other times his summaries of Rushdoony's views either confuse important terms, give an inappropriate slant, or are simply wrong. (One of the worst misuses is that of the term "regeneration" – Rushdoony certainly did not believe that Christians are regenerated by law or education as McVicar says or implies.) I should say, though, that McVicar does a good job telling the story of how Rushdoony came to his beliefs, and he does clear up some misrepresentations that have been spread by others (such as that Rushdoony was supposedly a neo-Nazi, fascist, etc...).
In short, I would recommend this book to those who are already familiar with Rushdoony's writings. They can learn from Rushdoony's failures and successes and gain better context for their own pursuits of Christian Reconstruction. I would not recommend this book to learn what Rushdoony taught. That could be done more easily and accurately by simply reading a book or two written by Rushdoony himself.
For a longer book review, I would recommend reading Martin Selbrede's review: http://chalcedon.edu/research/article...
On the other hand, I think McVicar fails (at times) to rightly communicate what Rushdoony taught. He certainly has done a better job than some writers (which isn't saying much), and at times he hits the nail right on the head, but other times his summaries of Rushdoony's views either confuse important terms, give an inappropriate slant, or are simply wrong. (One of the worst misuses is that of the term "regeneration" – Rushdoony certainly did not believe that Christians are regenerated by law or education as McVicar says or implies.) I should say, though, that McVicar does a good job telling the story of how Rushdoony came to his beliefs, and he does clear up some misrepresentations that have been spread by others (such as that Rushdoony was supposedly a neo-Nazi, fascist, etc...).
In short, I would recommend this book to those who are already familiar with Rushdoony's writings. They can learn from Rushdoony's failures and successes and gain better context for their own pursuits of Christian Reconstruction. I would not recommend this book to learn what Rushdoony taught. That could be done more easily and accurately by simply reading a book or two written by Rushdoony himself.
For a longer book review, I would recommend reading Martin Selbrede's review: http://chalcedon.edu/research/article...
November 16, 2019
Let’s get one thing clear. Rushdoony’s last name is spelled “Rushdoony.” There is no “e” in it. If you want to be Armenian about it, you can spell it Rushdouni, as in his father’s name. His family’s history is really neat. His father, Y.K. Rushdooni, was connected to the Armenian Orthodox Church until the Turks (like they do today) slaughtered his village in 1886. The elder Rushdouni later converted to Presbyterianism.
Whatever Rushdoony’s other problems were, you can’t fault his reading of the Bible. He learned to read English by reading the King James under kerosene lamps. By the time he was a teenager, he had read it through many times.
This book is outstanding. If you hate Rushdoony, you will love this book. If you love Rushdoony, you will love this bio.
He notes notes the difficulties Rushdoony and his first wife, Arda June, had. Arda wasn’t meant for mission life on the reservation. Rushdoony’s journals give some evidence of the “Wild West” life:
Introducing Chalcedon
While Rushdoony’s interpretation of Chalcedon omits several key aspects--okay, he avoided almost all of the key metaphysical concerns--his political interpretation isn’t entirely far-fetched. Ancient man would never have separated ontology from politics.
Funny Problems with Christianity Today and Faulkner
Observations
* Rushdoony was one of the first to galvanize the “militant conservative housewife” population.
* While I am severely critical of much of his theology, Rushdoony on capturing the “dominion” aspect of the imago dei is pretty good.
Rushdoony and Bahnsen
It seems Rushdoony threw Bahnsen to the wolves after the RTS debacle.
Tyler Theology
Downplayed the family and emphasized the church. They were also concerned with material survival in the post-apocalyptic world. However, the Tyler church had a habit of “excommunicating dissident members.”
While Gary North had his own problems to deal with, it is ironic that Rushdoony accused the Tyler guys of “blasphemy” and urged “they recant their positions.” This coming when Rushdoony had divorced himself from the church and fed himself communion.
Whatever Rushdoony’s other problems were, you can’t fault his reading of the Bible. He learned to read English by reading the King James under kerosene lamps. By the time he was a teenager, he had read it through many times.
This book is outstanding. If you hate Rushdoony, you will love this book. If you love Rushdoony, you will love this bio.
He notes notes the difficulties Rushdoony and his first wife, Arda June, had. Arda wasn’t meant for mission life on the reservation. Rushdoony’s journals give some evidence of the “Wild West” life:
Introducing Chalcedon
While Rushdoony’s interpretation of Chalcedon omits several key aspects--okay, he avoided almost all of the key metaphysical concerns--his political interpretation isn’t entirely far-fetched. Ancient man would never have separated ontology from politics.
Funny Problems with Christianity Today and Faulkner
Observations
* Rushdoony was one of the first to galvanize the “militant conservative housewife” population.
* While I am severely critical of much of his theology, Rushdoony on capturing the “dominion” aspect of the imago dei is pretty good.
Rushdoony and Bahnsen
It seems Rushdoony threw Bahnsen to the wolves after the RTS debacle.
Tyler Theology
Downplayed the family and emphasized the church. They were also concerned with material survival in the post-apocalyptic world. However, the Tyler church had a habit of “excommunicating dissident members.”
While Gary North had his own problems to deal with, it is ironic that Rushdoony accused the Tyler guys of “blasphemy” and urged “they recant their positions.” This coming when Rushdoony had divorced himself from the church and fed himself communion.
July 22, 2016
Last year before I started grad school I thought Christian Reconstructionism would be an interesting topic to tackle. I wasn't aware of much research done on Christian Reconstructionism but I quickly discovered there were at least two substantial books on the movement - "Christian Reconstruction: R.J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism" by Michael J. McVicar and "Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction" by Julie J. Ingersoll.
McVicar's book is an excellent exploration and analysis of R.J. Rushdoony, Christian Reconstructionism's primary pioneer, and the movement itself. The first few chapters follows Rushdoony and his early years as a missionary on a Native American reserve. During this period, Rushdoony also came across the works of Cornelius Van Til, the Calvinist theologian and philosopher. These experiences proved formative; Rushdoony witnessed the lawlessness that afflicted the reserve (perhaps providing the impetus for Rushdoony's fervent focus on biblical law as a means of restoring holiness and order), Rushdoony lamented the state's inability and negligence in caring for the Native Americans and Rushdoony's embrace of Van Tillian presuppositionalism would provide the intellectual framework for his work and thought. After leaving the reservation Rushdoony found himself in southern California where he began exercising influence thanks to the initial support of conservative Christian housewives who wanted him to lead their Bible studies. He would establish the Chalcedon Foundation which would disseminate his ideas through letters, tracts and books (most notably the massive "Institutes of Biblical Law") and tirelessly tour to promote Christian Reconstructionism. Although Rushdoony brushed with eminent scholars and thinkers, he was never able to achieve mainstream success.
Rushdoony mentored and developed the next generation of Christian Reconstructionists, several of whom would die prematurely (Greg Bahnsen and David H. Chilton). Christian Reconstructionism promoted the use of biblical law, an aggressive Calvinist worldview grounded in presuppositionalism, homeschooling and libertarian economics. The most notable would be his future son-in-law, Gary North. Eventually North, Bahnsen and other Reconstructionists would turn on Rushdoony and found a rival Reconstructionist organization in Tyler, Texas. McVicar writes poignantly about Rushdoony's later life, when he felt abandoned by his proteges and close friends and unrecognized for his work (McVicar persuasively demonstrates how much the Religious Right's key figures, such as Francis Schaeffer, Pat Robertson, and D. James Kennedy owe to Rushdoony; although an ardent Calvinist, Rushdoony's impact would even be felt in Pentecostal and secular conservative circles).
The research in this book is topnotch. McVicar is able to draw upon Rushdoony's correspondence in letters. Considering it's extreme views on government, economics and religion, McVicar's book provides a fairly balanced portrayal of Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism and is essential reading for anyone interested in 20th-century American Christian history.
McVicar's book is an excellent exploration and analysis of R.J. Rushdoony, Christian Reconstructionism's primary pioneer, and the movement itself. The first few chapters follows Rushdoony and his early years as a missionary on a Native American reserve. During this period, Rushdoony also came across the works of Cornelius Van Til, the Calvinist theologian and philosopher. These experiences proved formative; Rushdoony witnessed the lawlessness that afflicted the reserve (perhaps providing the impetus for Rushdoony's fervent focus on biblical law as a means of restoring holiness and order), Rushdoony lamented the state's inability and negligence in caring for the Native Americans and Rushdoony's embrace of Van Tillian presuppositionalism would provide the intellectual framework for his work and thought. After leaving the reservation Rushdoony found himself in southern California where he began exercising influence thanks to the initial support of conservative Christian housewives who wanted him to lead their Bible studies. He would establish the Chalcedon Foundation which would disseminate his ideas through letters, tracts and books (most notably the massive "Institutes of Biblical Law") and tirelessly tour to promote Christian Reconstructionism. Although Rushdoony brushed with eminent scholars and thinkers, he was never able to achieve mainstream success.
Rushdoony mentored and developed the next generation of Christian Reconstructionists, several of whom would die prematurely (Greg Bahnsen and David H. Chilton). Christian Reconstructionism promoted the use of biblical law, an aggressive Calvinist worldview grounded in presuppositionalism, homeschooling and libertarian economics. The most notable would be his future son-in-law, Gary North. Eventually North, Bahnsen and other Reconstructionists would turn on Rushdoony and found a rival Reconstructionist organization in Tyler, Texas. McVicar writes poignantly about Rushdoony's later life, when he felt abandoned by his proteges and close friends and unrecognized for his work (McVicar persuasively demonstrates how much the Religious Right's key figures, such as Francis Schaeffer, Pat Robertson, and D. James Kennedy owe to Rushdoony; although an ardent Calvinist, Rushdoony's impact would even be felt in Pentecostal and secular conservative circles).
The research in this book is topnotch. McVicar is able to draw upon Rushdoony's correspondence in letters. Considering it's extreme views on government, economics and religion, McVicar's book provides a fairly balanced portrayal of Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism and is essential reading for anyone interested in 20th-century American Christian history.
August 14, 2023
I'm not sure you're ever going to find a more comprehensive exploration of the ideas of R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism and one of the more unheralded influential forces of the Religious Right. McVicar's book also serves as a biographical sketch of the man himself, although folks expecting a typical biographical treatment might be disappointed, as once Rushdoony begins writing and publishing, the book focuses much more strongly on his ideas, and putting together a sense of Rushdoony's actual movements and milestones becomes more difficult.
Overall, this definitely reads more like an academic work than a popular-level one, although I'm not sure how many casual readers there are of Rushdoony's work; if you're interested in him, you're probably going to enjoy this book and not be put off by the density.
McVicar – who by the way is my PhD advisor, so conflict of interest duly noted – does a great job describing Rushdoony and his ideas in a neutral way, which is particularly noteworthy because those ideas are wild. In fact, it's unsurprising that nearly everyone influenced by Rushdoony tended not to publicly acknowledge their intellectual debt. The man advocated for the execution of gay people, but also chronically disobedient children and numerous other "criminals" as part of instituting Old Testament law as the basis for American society. That's one of the more extreme and obviously ridiculous practical outcomes of Rushdoony's theology, but the theology itself is frankly insane. Rushdoony seems rarely to have spoken of love – which is kind of an important part of biblical descriptions of God – and instead built a system of political and religious domination based on fear, patriarchy, and fear and loathing of the state. He somehow managed to reject premillennialism and its notoriously pessimistic outlook about the future of humanity in favor of a postmillennialism that is somehow even more pessimistic.
McVicar is up front that he's not interested in a psychological study of Rushdoony, which is probably wise – those sorts of things often say more about the author than the subject. Still, if anyone is crying out for a Freudian treatment of his life and career, it's someone like Rushdoony – the son of genocide survivors who unsurprisingly grew up to loathe the state, a young man who committed his wife in a mental institution then advocated an extraordinarily patriarchal system. It seems clear that Rushdoony himself might have had an undiagnosed mental illness, given McVicar's description of his various obsessions, mercurial personal relationships, and let's say ... inventive? ... interpretations all made me wonder if a few decades later, some medication would have helped him settle down to be a normal Presbyterian minister somewhere. But who knows? It's dangerous waters assuming mental illness when there's not a diagnosis, especially given how easy it is to then reify negative stereotypes of mental illness, but there are signs all over the book not only that Rushdoony was unwell, but that other people recognized it.
Which then calls into question the whole structure of what he created. His hostility to the state manifested itself most influentially in his testimony on behalf of homeschool parents and pastors that helped overturn bans on homeschooling nationwide. Given the crisis caused by the exodus of conservative parents from public schooling since Brown v. Board, I might argue that Rushdoony is one of the more malign figures contributing to the recent breakdown of social cohesion in the United States. McVicar doesn't really go into this – again, he plays it down the middle, focusing on a description of Rushdoony's views and their influence in various circles – and it's hard to say he should have, but reading the book opens up a lot of these questions.
Overall, I'd say this book does exactly what it aims to do, and does so in a way that's accessible for those interested in the subject matter. Especially given McVicar's unparalleled access to Rushdoony's archives, I can't imagine a book on Christian Reconstruction doing a better job.
Overall, this definitely reads more like an academic work than a popular-level one, although I'm not sure how many casual readers there are of Rushdoony's work; if you're interested in him, you're probably going to enjoy this book and not be put off by the density.
McVicar – who by the way is my PhD advisor, so conflict of interest duly noted – does a great job describing Rushdoony and his ideas in a neutral way, which is particularly noteworthy because those ideas are wild. In fact, it's unsurprising that nearly everyone influenced by Rushdoony tended not to publicly acknowledge their intellectual debt. The man advocated for the execution of gay people, but also chronically disobedient children and numerous other "criminals" as part of instituting Old Testament law as the basis for American society. That's one of the more extreme and obviously ridiculous practical outcomes of Rushdoony's theology, but the theology itself is frankly insane. Rushdoony seems rarely to have spoken of love – which is kind of an important part of biblical descriptions of God – and instead built a system of political and religious domination based on fear, patriarchy, and fear and loathing of the state. He somehow managed to reject premillennialism and its notoriously pessimistic outlook about the future of humanity in favor of a postmillennialism that is somehow even more pessimistic.
McVicar is up front that he's not interested in a psychological study of Rushdoony, which is probably wise – those sorts of things often say more about the author than the subject. Still, if anyone is crying out for a Freudian treatment of his life and career, it's someone like Rushdoony – the son of genocide survivors who unsurprisingly grew up to loathe the state, a young man who committed his wife in a mental institution then advocated an extraordinarily patriarchal system. It seems clear that Rushdoony himself might have had an undiagnosed mental illness, given McVicar's description of his various obsessions, mercurial personal relationships, and let's say ... inventive? ... interpretations all made me wonder if a few decades later, some medication would have helped him settle down to be a normal Presbyterian minister somewhere. But who knows? It's dangerous waters assuming mental illness when there's not a diagnosis, especially given how easy it is to then reify negative stereotypes of mental illness, but there are signs all over the book not only that Rushdoony was unwell, but that other people recognized it.
Which then calls into question the whole structure of what he created. His hostility to the state manifested itself most influentially in his testimony on behalf of homeschool parents and pastors that helped overturn bans on homeschooling nationwide. Given the crisis caused by the exodus of conservative parents from public schooling since Brown v. Board, I might argue that Rushdoony is one of the more malign figures contributing to the recent breakdown of social cohesion in the United States. McVicar doesn't really go into this – again, he plays it down the middle, focusing on a description of Rushdoony's views and their influence in various circles – and it's hard to say he should have, but reading the book opens up a lot of these questions.
Overall, I'd say this book does exactly what it aims to do, and does so in a way that's accessible for those interested in the subject matter. Especially given McVicar's unparalleled access to Rushdoony's archives, I can't imagine a book on Christian Reconstruction doing a better job.
September 30, 2020
Christian Reconstruction est une biographie de Rousas John Rushdoony, le fondateur du "reconstructionnisme" ou dominionisme chrétien, écrite par Michael McVicar. Cette biographie éclaire le contexte de Rushdoony plus que son intimité, et a pour objectif de raconter l'influence et la construction de l'oeuvre théologique d'un véritable Tertullien du XXe siècle.
En effet, Rushdoony a toutes les caractéristiques de Tertullien: brillant, prolifique, érudit, convaincu à en déplacer les montagnes, n'ayant pas peur de l'opposition, défenseur de l'orthodoxie. Mais il en aussi les défauts: tempérament enflammé, sectaire, il finit sa vie très isolé, alors même que son héritage fleurit tout autour de lui, et ses excès de zèle l'ont amené à aller trop loin même dans sa doctrine. Une oeuvre fascinante.
Le chapitre 1 'The Glory is departed" raconte le contexte du début de ministère de Rushdoony, quand il était pasteur dans une réserve indienne, cherchant la clé de la pertinence de l'évangile dans un monde rebelle soumis aux interventions lourdes du gouvernement central. On y parle de sa découverte du présuppositionalisme de Van Til.
Le chapitre 2 "The Anti-Everything Agenda" raconte comme Rushdoony, après avoir été exclu de la PCUSA (libérale) et débarqué même de son pastorat, a brièvement tâché de trouver sa voie dans les think tanks conservateurs des années 60. Hélas, son sectarisme et son zèle a fini par l'exclure d'une participation directe à cette voie.
Le chapitre 3 "A Christian Renaissance" raconte la cristallisation de son oeuvre principale -le reconstructionnisme- dans un ministère d'études bibliques en petit comité, et la fondation de Chalcedon Foundation. On y trouve aussi les grands traits de sa philosophie, et comment il a recruté ses principaux disciples: Gary North et Greg Bahnsen.
Le chapitre 4 "Lex Rex" raconte l'engagement de Rushdoony en faveur de l'école à la maison, et comment il a à lui seul façonné et établi ce mouvement. On y parle aussi de la trop brève collaboration entre Christianity Today et Rushdoony, qui a capoté aussi à cause de son sectarisme et de son tempérament mauvais. C'est ainsi que Rushdoony s'est retrouvé à définir "l'extrême droite" du mouvement néo-évangélique des années 70 (celui de Billy Graham)
Le chapitre 5: "Dominion Men" se focalise sur le sommet d'influence du reconstructionnisme, dans les années 80, avec une étude de comment Gary North et Greg Bahnsen ont popularisé le reconstructionnisme, et surtout ont influencé la "Droite religieuse" des années 80. On y parle aussi des différentes approches (à long terme pour Rushdoony vs plus électoraliste pour ses disciples) qui ont eu cours au milieu de cette décennie.
Le chapitre 6 "American Heretics" parle de l'automne de ce mouvement: On y raconte le schisme entre Chalcedon et l'école de Tyler, l'apparition du reconstructionnisme dans le radar du public, et les réactions d'opposition de la part du reste du monde évangélique. Le livre raconte aussi comment Rushdoony a vu ses idées se répandre partout sans être mentionné par personne, et qu'il était opposé de tous.
Michael McVicar a fait une très bonne oeuvre. Je salue en particulier d'avoir privilégié à ce point l'étude du contexte, plutôt que la vie intérieure que l'on voit souvent dans les biographies. Cela fait un livre très intéressant qui donne envie de découvrir et lire les ouvrages reconstructionnistes. McVicar lui-même n'est pas reconstructionniste, mais il a fait un travail honnête dans la restitution et le résumé des idées. En tout cas, j'ai bien reconnu ce dont il parlait. Le style est simple et sans fioritures, privilégiant une narration directe et facile à lire.
Même s'il n'est pas à proprement parler une introduction à l'oeuvre de Rushdoony, il m'a donné envie de lire ce nouveau Tertullien. Une lecture intéressante.
En effet, Rushdoony a toutes les caractéristiques de Tertullien: brillant, prolifique, érudit, convaincu à en déplacer les montagnes, n'ayant pas peur de l'opposition, défenseur de l'orthodoxie. Mais il en aussi les défauts: tempérament enflammé, sectaire, il finit sa vie très isolé, alors même que son héritage fleurit tout autour de lui, et ses excès de zèle l'ont amené à aller trop loin même dans sa doctrine. Une oeuvre fascinante.
Le chapitre 1 'The Glory is departed" raconte le contexte du début de ministère de Rushdoony, quand il était pasteur dans une réserve indienne, cherchant la clé de la pertinence de l'évangile dans un monde rebelle soumis aux interventions lourdes du gouvernement central. On y parle de sa découverte du présuppositionalisme de Van Til.
Le chapitre 2 "The Anti-Everything Agenda" raconte comme Rushdoony, après avoir été exclu de la PCUSA (libérale) et débarqué même de son pastorat, a brièvement tâché de trouver sa voie dans les think tanks conservateurs des années 60. Hélas, son sectarisme et son zèle a fini par l'exclure d'une participation directe à cette voie.
Le chapitre 3 "A Christian Renaissance" raconte la cristallisation de son oeuvre principale -le reconstructionnisme- dans un ministère d'études bibliques en petit comité, et la fondation de Chalcedon Foundation. On y trouve aussi les grands traits de sa philosophie, et comment il a recruté ses principaux disciples: Gary North et Greg Bahnsen.
Le chapitre 4 "Lex Rex" raconte l'engagement de Rushdoony en faveur de l'école à la maison, et comment il a à lui seul façonné et établi ce mouvement. On y parle aussi de la trop brève collaboration entre Christianity Today et Rushdoony, qui a capoté aussi à cause de son sectarisme et de son tempérament mauvais. C'est ainsi que Rushdoony s'est retrouvé à définir "l'extrême droite" du mouvement néo-évangélique des années 70 (celui de Billy Graham)
Le chapitre 5: "Dominion Men" se focalise sur le sommet d'influence du reconstructionnisme, dans les années 80, avec une étude de comment Gary North et Greg Bahnsen ont popularisé le reconstructionnisme, et surtout ont influencé la "Droite religieuse" des années 80. On y parle aussi des différentes approches (à long terme pour Rushdoony vs plus électoraliste pour ses disciples) qui ont eu cours au milieu de cette décennie.
Le chapitre 6 "American Heretics" parle de l'automne de ce mouvement: On y raconte le schisme entre Chalcedon et l'école de Tyler, l'apparition du reconstructionnisme dans le radar du public, et les réactions d'opposition de la part du reste du monde évangélique. Le livre raconte aussi comment Rushdoony a vu ses idées se répandre partout sans être mentionné par personne, et qu'il était opposé de tous.
Michael McVicar a fait une très bonne oeuvre. Je salue en particulier d'avoir privilégié à ce point l'étude du contexte, plutôt que la vie intérieure que l'on voit souvent dans les biographies. Cela fait un livre très intéressant qui donne envie de découvrir et lire les ouvrages reconstructionnistes. McVicar lui-même n'est pas reconstructionniste, mais il a fait un travail honnête dans la restitution et le résumé des idées. En tout cas, j'ai bien reconnu ce dont il parlait. Le style est simple et sans fioritures, privilégiant une narration directe et facile à lire.
Même s'il n'est pas à proprement parler une introduction à l'oeuvre de Rushdoony, il m'a donné envie de lire ce nouveau Tertullien. Une lecture intéressante.
January 29, 2022
A well-researched and carefully argued work. McVicar is careful not to tie cause and effect too tightly, as many are apt to do today in their historical projects.
May 4, 2015
The first of its kind, a book that takes a serious look at the life of a man many have never heard of and whose influence in the rise of the Christian Right is immense, McVicar offers us a telling and comprehensive look at the life of Rousas John Rushdoony. The book really is extraordinary by presenting Rushdoony not as a savior (as his followers would like) or as the Dark Lord (as his enemies would like), here we get a look at Rushdoony the man. McVicar's even-handedness must be noted in his profile of a personality on par with Ayn Rand's in its intellect, its sectarianism and harshness to allies and enemies alike, Rushdoony is presented in the context of the turbulent early-and-mid twentieth century, and as a product of that century rather than standing in opposition to it as Rushdoony's followers and Rushdoony himself believed. There is much here that is new; I grew up in Reconstrucitonist circles and had read through Rushdoony's books by the time I was seventeen, and there were still large pieces of his life that this book clarified and brought into light. As a critic of Rushdoony's theological and political agenda, I cannot help noting this telling anecdote from his adolescence. Having heard from his father that Rushdoony had read the Bible cover to cover many times by the time he was ten, a pastor from a nearby church questioned him to see if this was true. Then this pastor said, "What's going on in that little head of yours? Can you be trusted to be loosed upon the world?"
Far better, perhaps, that he had not been so trusted - much as it might have been far better for Augustine to have continued his sexual idles rather than bequeathing upon the world the bitter fruits of Augustinianism, one of which would ultimately be Rushdoony himself.
Far better, perhaps, that he had not been so trusted - much as it might have been far better for Augustine to have continued his sexual idles rather than bequeathing upon the world the bitter fruits of Augustinianism, one of which would ultimately be Rushdoony himself.
October 4, 2016
I have a kind of "knowledgeable laymen" fascination with American religious history, especially as it relates to political realities and evangelicalism. This book was one of the most important books I've read on the rise of the Religious Right and the coalescing co-belligerents, including oddities like Christian Reconstruction. This book was deeply insightful and, frankly, a little disturbing for me. Regardless, the author has done an excellent job dealing charitably with Christian Reconstruction. A contender for book of the year.
January 29, 2025
Sometimes the most powerful of social movements begin with an obscure beginning. Such is the case with Christian Reconstruction. This is a term that most people probably have never heard and R.J. Rushdoony may be an unknown man. Yet both the movement and the man have been far more influential than we can ever imagine.
As a missionary on Native lands in the late 1940s, Rushdoony came into contact with the worst of Government administration. Frustrated, and wanting to maintain his theological positions intact, Rushdoony embarked on a quest to reform the church and the society around him. This quest would occupy his whole life until his death in 2001.
This book is not so much a biography of Rushdoony as it is a biography of early Christian Reconstructionism. Rushdoony is present throughout because of his influence and work in the area.
Christian reconstruction sees itself as a movement to transform the United States into a Christian society, based on the Old Testament biblical law. Steeped in strict Calvinism and the Presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til, Rushdoony's project saw inroads into the establishment of stalwart conservative Christian movements such as Christianity Today and the Homeschooling movement.
Christian reconstruction fractured almost from the very beginning due to Rushdoony's combative nature and sectarian interests. But this allowed the theology involved to become coopted by different groups. Gary Noth (Rushdoony's son in law) developed a reconstructionist economic plan based on the works of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Greg Bahnsen expanded Rushdoony (and Van Til's) work in the theological sphere with his book Theonomy. But others, such as C. Peter Wagner took aspects of Rushdoony's work to develop the New Apostolic Reformation. Fromer Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanaan also popularized Rushdoony's work with his emphasis on Dominion.
Christian Reconstruction develops this story into a coherent plot in which the reader sees the development of this project over the last 80 years. Written as a thesis, the book bears the marks of scholastic writing and can be repetitive at times. Overall, the book is free from academic jargon and is clear enough to follow. Author Michael McVicar gained unprecedented access to Rushdoony's personal papers which gives us keen insight into the movements ups and downs.
While this is not a book you would take to the beach, it is well written enough to take out at the coffee house.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in Christianity (particularly the Reformed variety), history, politics and social movements.
Grade: A-
As a missionary on Native lands in the late 1940s, Rushdoony came into contact with the worst of Government administration. Frustrated, and wanting to maintain his theological positions intact, Rushdoony embarked on a quest to reform the church and the society around him. This quest would occupy his whole life until his death in 2001.
This book is not so much a biography of Rushdoony as it is a biography of early Christian Reconstructionism. Rushdoony is present throughout because of his influence and work in the area.
Christian reconstruction sees itself as a movement to transform the United States into a Christian society, based on the Old Testament biblical law. Steeped in strict Calvinism and the Presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til, Rushdoony's project saw inroads into the establishment of stalwart conservative Christian movements such as Christianity Today and the Homeschooling movement.
Christian reconstruction fractured almost from the very beginning due to Rushdoony's combative nature and sectarian interests. But this allowed the theology involved to become coopted by different groups. Gary Noth (Rushdoony's son in law) developed a reconstructionist economic plan based on the works of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Greg Bahnsen expanded Rushdoony (and Van Til's) work in the theological sphere with his book Theonomy. But others, such as C. Peter Wagner took aspects of Rushdoony's work to develop the New Apostolic Reformation. Fromer Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanaan also popularized Rushdoony's work with his emphasis on Dominion.
Christian Reconstruction develops this story into a coherent plot in which the reader sees the development of this project over the last 80 years. Written as a thesis, the book bears the marks of scholastic writing and can be repetitive at times. Overall, the book is free from academic jargon and is clear enough to follow. Author Michael McVicar gained unprecedented access to Rushdoony's personal papers which gives us keen insight into the movements ups and downs.
While this is not a book you would take to the beach, it is well written enough to take out at the coffee house.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in Christianity (particularly the Reformed variety), history, politics and social movements.
Grade: A-
July 16, 2015
Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) was the founder of Christian Reconstruction, Theonomy or Dominionism as it has been variously designated. He has been described as ‘political heretic’ (Rodney Clapp), 'a man every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or anyone else you may want to name amongst the annals of evil' (BCSE ) and as ‘founder of the Christian homeschooling movement and an intellectual catalyst of the Christian Right’ (Christianity Today 2 April 2001: 25).
The school of thought that he founded has been described as ‘a dangerous secret society intent on turning the United States into a theocracy’ and as the ‘think tank of the religious right’! As McVicar asserts Rushdoony is an ‘enigma — at once intellectually deep and emotionally distant, a complex mix of hubris and humility’. In this well researched and written book McVicar helps us to understand Rushdoony the man and Christian Reconstructionism the ‘movement’ a little better.
McVicar looks at the influences on Rushdoony by taking a biographical and chronological approach. It was as a missionary on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation in Owyhee, Nevada that he began to see what he saw as the overreach of the government. This shaped his view of the need for limited or minimal government. In March 1946 he came across Cornelius van Til’s The New Modernism. This seemingly caused a paradigm shift in his thinking and he adopted Van Til’s presuppositionalist approach. Van Til gave him the tools to critique the role of the state and to develop his Christian approach to the state.
In 1952 he took up the pastorate of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Santa Cruz. This was not an easy time for him and his family. His wife had a breakdown and sued for divorce. Rushdoony had custody of the their three youngest children. McVicar’s chapter 2 entitled ‘The anti-everything agenda’ tell of Rushdony’s association with several right wing Christian organisations, these included Spiritual Mobilisation, William Volker Charities Fund and Centre for American Studies (CAS). It during this time that Rushdoony came across Albert J. Nock’s idea of the remnant. Rushdoony ‘developed an explicitly religious notion of the Remnant’ (p 61). Rushdoony’s approach was separation rather than connection didn’t help to win many friends. He was eventually fired from the CAS.
Chapter 3, ‘A Christian renaissance’ describes the beginings of Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism. It started when Gary North introduced Rushdoony to the women associated with the Betsy Ross Book Shop. The Chalcedon Foundation was started in 1965. The plan was to develop a Christian College but that never materialised, but the task of Christian reconstruction and Christian dominion had begun.
The main factors that contributed to the Chalcedon project were presuppositionalism, post-millennialism, and the need to return to biblical law which entailed a reduction in the reach of the state and the focus on the role of the family. Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty was utilised, but it was a truncated version of it. The only spheres Rushdoony recognised were the church, the state and the family. Missing from the influences McVicar cites is Robert L. Dabney. Dabney’s view of the American civil war was taken up and developed by Rushdoony and incorporated into his 'Christian' America view of history.
Rushdoony’s tussle with Christianity Today is well told in chapter 4. Here again Rushdoony’s separatist approach made him few friends. In 1969 Rushdoony began his lectures on what came to be his seminal work The Institutes of Biblical Law. Gary North later said of the book ‘I recognized early that this book would launch a movement’ (Christian Reconstruction 12(2), March/April 1988). In it Rushdoony posited that the biblical law was still binding and provided the ‘structuring blueprint for all aspects of life’ ( p 129). As McVicar notes:
‘Through the law, the reconstructed Christian male - or “dominion man,’ as Rushdoony called him — could “take dominion” over the plate and “reconstruct” all of life in Christ’s image.’
The exclusive language is deliberate - Rushdoony and the Reconstructionist approach is very patriarchal. Women were to be a ‘helpmeet’ to the men. For Rushdoony the family was ‘the most important institution in society’. It was during this time that Gary North and Greg L. Bahsen became more involved with Rushdoony.
North married one of Rushdoony’s daughters and has described himself as one of the co-founders of Christian Reconstruction (Christian Reconstruction March/April 1988). Both North and Bahnsen were popularisers of Rushdoony’s views. Bahnsen lectured at RTS Jackson and his students included Kenneth Gentry, James B. Jordan, David Chilton and Gary DeMar, a group McVicar called the ‘hard core of the second and third generation of Reconstructionists’ (p160). Bashen’s theonomic views weren’t appreciated by at at RTS and he was fired from his post. The catalyst for the firing was the publication of his Theonomy in Christian Ethics.
North, Bahnsen and several of Bahnsen’s students went to Tyler, Texas. There they became involved with Westminster Presbyterian Church pastored by Ray Sutton. They developed their own form of Reconstructionism which McVicar aptly describes as ‘a complex mix of Rushdoony-style Reconstructionism, paramilitary survivalism and an aggressive theological polemics’ (p 182).
They fell out with Rushdoony over the nature of the church. For Rushdoony the key institution is the family, for the Tyler Group it was the church. And they developed very strict measures of church discipline. Sutton is now a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church, unfortunately the story of this radical change is untold.
McVicar’s book received a warm review on the Chalcedon website — this is testimony to McVicar’s even handedness; McVicar even had articles on Rushdoony published in Chalcedon’s Faith and Life magazine:
2008. Working with pygmies: R. J. Rushdoony, Christianity Today, and the making of an American theologian’. Faith for All of Life (Jul/Aug): 14-18,32. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/30522420/Ju...]
2008. ’“First Owyhee, then the world”: The early ministry of R. J. Rushdoony’. Faith for All of Life (Nov/Dec) 18-22, 33. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/30522581/No...]
Comparisons have to be made with Julie Ingersol’s Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Unlike McVicar, Ingersoll was once an insider; she was married to a key Reconstructionist. McVicar had direct access to Rushdoony’s library (of over 40,000 volumes!) and papers. Ingersoll concentrates more on the legacy of Rushdoony as seen in Christian education, creationism, biblical economics, the religious right and the revision of Christian American history. She is also more academic and empirically based than McVicar. For McVicar Rushdoony is main focus, for Ingersoll he is the background.
For a good introduction to Rushdoony the man the best staring point is McVicar, for the on-going legacy then Ingersoll. The books complement each other.
Originally on http://stevebishop.blogspot.co.uk/201...
The school of thought that he founded has been described as ‘a dangerous secret society intent on turning the United States into a theocracy’ and as the ‘think tank of the religious right’! As McVicar asserts Rushdoony is an ‘enigma — at once intellectually deep and emotionally distant, a complex mix of hubris and humility’. In this well researched and written book McVicar helps us to understand Rushdoony the man and Christian Reconstructionism the ‘movement’ a little better.
McVicar looks at the influences on Rushdoony by taking a biographical and chronological approach. It was as a missionary on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation in Owyhee, Nevada that he began to see what he saw as the overreach of the government. This shaped his view of the need for limited or minimal government. In March 1946 he came across Cornelius van Til’s The New Modernism. This seemingly caused a paradigm shift in his thinking and he adopted Van Til’s presuppositionalist approach. Van Til gave him the tools to critique the role of the state and to develop his Christian approach to the state.
In 1952 he took up the pastorate of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Santa Cruz. This was not an easy time for him and his family. His wife had a breakdown and sued for divorce. Rushdoony had custody of the their three youngest children. McVicar’s chapter 2 entitled ‘The anti-everything agenda’ tell of Rushdony’s association with several right wing Christian organisations, these included Spiritual Mobilisation, William Volker Charities Fund and Centre for American Studies (CAS). It during this time that Rushdoony came across Albert J. Nock’s idea of the remnant. Rushdoony ‘developed an explicitly religious notion of the Remnant’ (p 61). Rushdoony’s approach was separation rather than connection didn’t help to win many friends. He was eventually fired from the CAS.
Chapter 3, ‘A Christian renaissance’ describes the beginings of Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism. It started when Gary North introduced Rushdoony to the women associated with the Betsy Ross Book Shop. The Chalcedon Foundation was started in 1965. The plan was to develop a Christian College but that never materialised, but the task of Christian reconstruction and Christian dominion had begun.
The main factors that contributed to the Chalcedon project were presuppositionalism, post-millennialism, and the need to return to biblical law which entailed a reduction in the reach of the state and the focus on the role of the family. Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty was utilised, but it was a truncated version of it. The only spheres Rushdoony recognised were the church, the state and the family. Missing from the influences McVicar cites is Robert L. Dabney. Dabney’s view of the American civil war was taken up and developed by Rushdoony and incorporated into his 'Christian' America view of history.
Rushdoony’s tussle with Christianity Today is well told in chapter 4. Here again Rushdoony’s separatist approach made him few friends. In 1969 Rushdoony began his lectures on what came to be his seminal work The Institutes of Biblical Law. Gary North later said of the book ‘I recognized early that this book would launch a movement’ (Christian Reconstruction 12(2), March/April 1988). In it Rushdoony posited that the biblical law was still binding and provided the ‘structuring blueprint for all aspects of life’ ( p 129). As McVicar notes:
‘Through the law, the reconstructed Christian male - or “dominion man,’ as Rushdoony called him — could “take dominion” over the plate and “reconstruct” all of life in Christ’s image.’
The exclusive language is deliberate - Rushdoony and the Reconstructionist approach is very patriarchal. Women were to be a ‘helpmeet’ to the men. For Rushdoony the family was ‘the most important institution in society’. It was during this time that Gary North and Greg L. Bahsen became more involved with Rushdoony.
North married one of Rushdoony’s daughters and has described himself as one of the co-founders of Christian Reconstruction (Christian Reconstruction March/April 1988). Both North and Bahnsen were popularisers of Rushdoony’s views. Bahnsen lectured at RTS Jackson and his students included Kenneth Gentry, James B. Jordan, David Chilton and Gary DeMar, a group McVicar called the ‘hard core of the second and third generation of Reconstructionists’ (p160). Bashen’s theonomic views weren’t appreciated by at at RTS and he was fired from his post. The catalyst for the firing was the publication of his Theonomy in Christian Ethics.
North, Bahnsen and several of Bahnsen’s students went to Tyler, Texas. There they became involved with Westminster Presbyterian Church pastored by Ray Sutton. They developed their own form of Reconstructionism which McVicar aptly describes as ‘a complex mix of Rushdoony-style Reconstructionism, paramilitary survivalism and an aggressive theological polemics’ (p 182).
They fell out with Rushdoony over the nature of the church. For Rushdoony the key institution is the family, for the Tyler Group it was the church. And they developed very strict measures of church discipline. Sutton is now a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church, unfortunately the story of this radical change is untold.
McVicar’s book received a warm review on the Chalcedon website — this is testimony to McVicar’s even handedness; McVicar even had articles on Rushdoony published in Chalcedon’s Faith and Life magazine:
2008. Working with pygmies: R. J. Rushdoony, Christianity Today, and the making of an American theologian’. Faith for All of Life (Jul/Aug): 14-18,32. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/30522420/Ju...]
2008. ’“First Owyhee, then the world”: The early ministry of R. J. Rushdoony’. Faith for All of Life (Nov/Dec) 18-22, 33. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/30522581/No...]
Comparisons have to be made with Julie Ingersol’s Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Unlike McVicar, Ingersoll was once an insider; she was married to a key Reconstructionist. McVicar had direct access to Rushdoony’s library (of over 40,000 volumes!) and papers. Ingersoll concentrates more on the legacy of Rushdoony as seen in Christian education, creationism, biblical economics, the religious right and the revision of Christian American history. She is also more academic and empirically based than McVicar. For McVicar Rushdoony is main focus, for Ingersoll he is the background.
For a good introduction to Rushdoony the man the best staring point is McVicar, for the on-going legacy then Ingersoll. The books complement each other.
Originally on http://stevebishop.blogspot.co.uk/201...
June 5, 2019
Reading this revised dissertation is a bit like eating spinach: you know it’s good for you, but it’s not fun. R. J. Rushdoony (1916-2001) was a brilliant man with odd ideas and a prickly personality who taught other brilliant men with prickly personalities—who developed their own odd ideas, which Rushdoony then resolutely condemned.
McVicar has made an important contribution to understanding the genesis and development of the Christian Reconstruction movement through a careful study of Rushdoony’s personal papers. Nevertheless, I doubt the movement was as influential in the development of the Religious Right as McVicar argues. Rushdoony regularly accused other Christian militants, like Francis Schaeffer, of stealing his ideas; but it’s more likely that men who took the Bible seriously—especially those from a Reformed background—took more inspiration from the Book than from Rushdoony. Certainly more influential in the rise of the Religious Right was Rushdoony’s contemporary, fundamentalist Presbyterian Carl McIntire (1906-2002), whom McVicar nearly ignores, except (amusingly under the circumstances) to call “God’s angriest man.”
McVicar has made an important contribution to understanding the genesis and development of the Christian Reconstruction movement through a careful study of Rushdoony’s personal papers. Nevertheless, I doubt the movement was as influential in the development of the Religious Right as McVicar argues. Rushdoony regularly accused other Christian militants, like Francis Schaeffer, of stealing his ideas; but it’s more likely that men who took the Bible seriously—especially those from a Reformed background—took more inspiration from the Book than from Rushdoony. Certainly more influential in the rise of the Religious Right was Rushdoony’s contemporary, fundamentalist Presbyterian Carl McIntire (1906-2002), whom McVicar nearly ignores, except (amusingly under the circumstances) to call “God’s angriest man.”
Read
July 4, 2020I'm left wondering how Reconstructionists can be libertarian. Libertarianism and Mosaic law, in my understanding of them, are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I get how their negative views of statism might line up, but their positive views seem world's apart.
Also, I've wondered something about Evangelicals in general and now about Gary North in particular. How does he square the Mosaic Law's prohibition of usury with capitalism? This contradiction seems at its highest point in the person of North. I suppose you could imagine a capitalist system that forbade interest on loans, but it is hard for me to imagine.
UPDATE: I googled North's position. https://www.garynorth.com/public/4007...
TL;DR
He believes Law only ever forbade charitable loans. He also believes that Jesus nullified that particular jot and tiddle.
Also, I've wondered something about Evangelicals in general and now about Gary North in particular. How does he square the Mosaic Law's prohibition of usury with capitalism? This contradiction seems at its highest point in the person of North. I suppose you could imagine a capitalist system that forbade interest on loans, but it is hard for me to imagine.
UPDATE: I googled North's position. https://www.garynorth.com/public/4007...
TL;DR
He believes Law only ever forbade charitable loans. He also believes that Jesus nullified that particular jot and tiddle.
May 15, 2021
Terrifying. If Stephen King wrote a book based on Rushdoony and Gary North it couldn't be much scarier than learning about the insidious & encroaching web that is Reconstructionist ideology (and, what could be argued, its complementary movement kinism) from its inception.
Dry, academic language kept me from giving it a higher rating, but still a very worthy read, and very well paired with the recent book "Jesus and John Wayne" by Kristin Kobes Du Mez, which is also excellent and terrifying.
Dry, academic language kept me from giving it a higher rating, but still a very worthy read, and very well paired with the recent book "Jesus and John Wayne" by Kristin Kobes Du Mez, which is also excellent and terrifying.
September 16, 2019
McVicar is not a reconstructionist, but he gives an even-handed and remarkably insightful account of Rushdoony and his enormous influence that continues to this day. The story reveals how sin and broken relationships separated many people who ought to have been working together. Still, Rushdoony's legacy of applying the Bible to all of life and defending rights (e.g. freedom to homeschool) is helpful documented and explained.
April 25, 2023
A very interesting take on the idea of "Christian reconstruction", especially in relation to where find ourselves in the United States today both politically and spiritually.
January 21, 2025
Depressing and frightening that the love, freedom, kindness, and inclusivity of what began as The Good News...Christianity...has been warped into this...again.
January 5, 2026
A brief but fair overview of the Christian Reconstruction movement.
March 13, 2017
Great read, seemed fair and greatly helped me understand Christian Reconstructionism development.
November 29, 2015
Excellent critical biography on one of the most misunderstood and maligned thinkers of conservative Christianity and politics. McVicar gives an even handed presentation of Rushdoony, and, for the most part, deftly navigates the confusing waters of evangelical theology. There were a few times where some of the claims weren't entirely accurate, such as p. 136 where the author claimed Fuller Theological Seminary as a place where dispensationalism was thriving and other times where he seemed to attribute theological concepts like sphere sovereignty to Rushdoony when Kuyper is the actual source.
From a historical perspective, this piece of research is most impressive. For such a polarizing figure, McVicar has done a great job in attempting to be as fair as possible. If he does feel the need to attribute actions to motivations, he makes a very qualified case. He also does excellent work with Rushdoony's early years of his career, especially since there was such little source material to work with.
All in all, an impressive work and a must read for one who is trying to get a handle on American religious history or politics.
From a historical perspective, this piece of research is most impressive. For such a polarizing figure, McVicar has done a great job in attempting to be as fair as possible. If he does feel the need to attribute actions to motivations, he makes a very qualified case. He also does excellent work with Rushdoony's early years of his career, especially since there was such little source material to work with.
All in all, an impressive work and a must read for one who is trying to get a handle on American religious history or politics.
December 14, 2015
Втора много добра книга за християнската реконструкция от академичен автор за 2015 година. Замислена като биография на Ръшдуни книгата предлага повече от достатъчно допълнителна информация за основните вярвания и играчи в движението като цяла както и за неговото влияние. Материалът е изключително добре проучен фактологически и (доколкото това е възможно) представен безпристрастно.
Задължително четиво за интересуващите се от темата.
Задължително четиво за интересуващите се от темата.
September 2, 2019
Having read virtually every book written by Rushdoony this work by McVicar gave a perspective of the movement created by him that I did not expect. I enjoyed the authors tracing of the Southern California conservative movement and the influences it gave to Rushdoony. Some of the stories were new and filled in details I had wondered about and in many respect, McVicar stayed true to explaining the theology espoused by Rushdoony. Good read!
August 17, 2015
Very informative look at the birth, peak and decline of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, focused on its main architect, R.J. Rushdoony. Whatever one thinks of Rousas' ideas, no one could ever deny his extreme work-ethic, commitment and massive wealth of knowledge. I respect him more after reading this book.
April 13, 2015
Even though I feel the author had no sympathy for CR, I learned much that is not available elsewhere. I very good and interesting book.
May 24, 2015
A pretty much perfect historical work.
September 15, 2015
Terrific, well-researched book on Rushdoony and Reconstruction. Recommended.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews