Yes you could be on to something there. And recall that Jews who lived under subsequent regimes (the Persian, Greek and Roman Empires) still felt that they were in exile, in captivity, even though back at home. Indeed, Daniel could speak of 70 times 70 (490) years of captivity (Dan. 9:2, 24). They awaited the Messiah who would come in power and glory and bring the true and final end to exile (by routing Israel’s enemies and restoring Israel to its former greatness). And as I mentioned, NT writers view believers as also part of the dispersal, waiting a final gathering when Jesus the Messiah comes a second and final time. So there are lots of interesting themes and ideas here.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I am very interested in your comment that it wasn’t right (or it wouldn’t work) to force Christian principles on an unwilling population. It is also interesting to note that you disagree with the Christians of America and Britain in molding their government on primarily Christian principles.

Surely from history we can see that these two nations had the most profound and beneficial impact of any of the great world empires. Yes, there were wrong decisions made, after all, these nations were run by humans . But by and large their effect on the world was beneficial, far more beneficial than any other world empire has been (such as the Roman, Greek, Persian, Chinese or Mongol empires).

Jesus came to seek and to save those whom were lost, he came to offer not only spiritual healing but also temporal healing. In the same way, Christians should looking not only to save souls, but to save cultures, countries and civilization. Note, I am not saying that saving souls is unimportant but saving souls is only the start of the work. Then the process of sanctification (bring our lives and countries into conformity with God’s word starts).

Throughout the books of Kings and Chronicles anyone should be able to see that when the King (or government) recognized God and sought to live by his laws there was a revival in Israel, but when there was an evil king usually the opposite was true.

Proverbs also backs this principle up many times:
“When the Godly succeed everyone is glad. When the wicked take charge people go into hiding.” Proverbs 28:12
“When the Godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan.” Proverbs 29:2 NLT
“When the wicked are in authority sin increases but the godly will live to see the tyrants downfall.” Proverbs 29 16

From these principles we can see that the godly will generally do a far better job at governing than the wicked will because they will follow God’s principles while they are in government. So why should we not try to build a theocracy or literally God government. Personally we all should be under such a system ourselves in that God should rule what we do in our lives. Many people have argue about the way that a theocracy on the governmental level should be set up and what particular form it should take but whatever form it takes as long as it seeks to apply God’s principles and laws into their government they will be blest by him.

Why settle for second best? Why should we let the pagans make all sorts of mess ups in running a country?

By the way your comments on the reconstuctionist are misleading at best. Social gospelist are those who try to foist their own opinions (particularly about social/economic structure) on a people through government, Reconstuctionists are those who apply God’s word as best they see it on others, they believe that God’s word has the answer to all of man’s problems and thus they try to impliment God’s word in evangilism, in government and family, in fact in all areas of life.

Social gospelist primarily focus on the state to heal man’s troubles. Reconstructionist focus on all areas of life though there has been an emphasis on government and family because both have been going to the dogs for the last fifty to a hundred years.

Also social gosepelists are from the left big time in terms of economics. Reconstuctionists are primarily capitalists in terms of their economics.

In fact, really it all boils down to the underlying differences in their philosophy. Social gospelists believe that man’s problems mainly come from his environment, that is why they heavily focus on aid to poorer countries ect. Reconstructionist believe that man’s problem is that he is living in rebelion against God and that if we bring our lives into conformity to God’s world it will certainly bring spiritual if not temperal blessings.

Also I am not quite sure how you relate the imposing Christian standards on un unwilling populace to the American Colonies and Calvin’s Geneva as in both of these instances it was a willing not an unwilling populace that it was forced on.

I also disagree with your speculation of why, after Cromwell’s death, the people of England wanted Charles II to rule. The whole of the English civil war was about whether a man could overthrough parliament and strange though it may seem the answer was yes, Cromwell could. It is ironic that the very people who were fighting against tyranny would end up having a greater tyranny placed on their heads as a result. Cromwell weilded far more power than any of the Stuarts and was probably the most absolute of the rulers of England since the time of William. Thus the English people found that instead of getting more freedom they got less and thus they thought it was better to have the Stuarts back.

It is also interesting to note that for all that people talk of Cromwell establishing a theocracy, he didn’t do it. He established a dictatorship with him as the head. Anyone who was willing to kill and enslave many of the Royalists in Ireland (or who had fled to Ireland) for no other crime than that they were loyal to their rightful king instead of a usurper was not in total obedience to God. Also, many of his laws were to supress people not to aid in public morality even though some of the laws were couched in those terms. Also he was a rebel who certainly had not grasped the concept of what David was meaning when he said that he could not hurt the Lord’s annointed.

Timothy Coombe

Yes agreeing to disagree in this regard is not inappropriate. But as to postmillennialism, you need to think historically here. Postmillennialists have been around for millennia (no pun intended), while the Reconstructionsists (eg., Rushdooney, North, Chilton, Bahnsen, etc) have only been around since last century. On that basis alone, the majority of postmillennialists have not been part of the Reconstuctionist camp.

And while Reconstructionists certainly have drawn upon the thinking of Dutch Calvinists such as Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, it would be incorrect to label these two as Reconstructionists.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch