Mr. Tuininga sadly appears to compare us to militant radicals.  Christian Reconstructionism has always promoted a “bottom-up” motif for the expansion of the Kingdom – not a “top-down” motif.  It is through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit that hearts will be changed and converts will then become desirous of being submissive to God’s law.  It will be very democratic.  We have no desire to be tyrants.

I hesitate to respond to Mr. Tuininga’s critique of my article, Reconstructionism, Alive and Well, because I do not want The Aquila Report to become a forum on Christian Reconstuctionism.  Also, I hesitate to respond because the flaws in his critique were, in my view, so obvious that I believe that the average reader of The Aquila Report would spot the problems in his response.   However, because I have been encouraged to respond by several friends, I will point out a few of the most salient errors in his critique. First, let me say that his anxious response was simply proof of my thesis that Christian Reconstructionism is despised in much of the Reformed and evangelical community.  It only took him a day to respond with an article posted on The Aquila Report.  That is fast!  Maybe too fast, in that he surely did not think long enough about what he was saying, and surely he needs to spend more time reading reconstruction literature.

Secondly, it seems to go unnoticed that in his references to Calvin, Mr. Tuininga’s response demonstrates one of the main theses of Christian Reconstructionism, which is that God’s law is to regulate both ecclesiastical and civil society.  Mr. Tuininga himself admits that Calvin believed “it was the state’s obligation to enforce both tables of the law….”  If Calvin did not distinguish between the separate spheres of civil, family, and ecclesiastical, then Calvin was in error on this point.

Mr. Tuininga refers to the New Testament’s driving motif, but I am interested in the motif of the Bible as a whole.  We are not simply New Testament Christians.  The epistles in the New Testament were written to small struggling churches that were being persecuted, and the motif of suffering for the faith is a great comfort in such a time of persecution.  Paul’s words in Romans 8:31 are indeed found in the context of suffering, but the principle of victory is not only applicable in the context of suffering, but the principle of the victory of God is applicable everywhere in the Bible.

After all, is that not the theme of the Bible itself, in both Old and New Testaments, “If God be for us, who shall be against us?”  It certainly speaks to the death and resurrection of Christ for the elect.  However, this motif also describes the faith of both Caleb and Joshua as they encouraged Israel to conquer the Promised Land.

Mr. Tuininga sadly appears to compare us to militant radicals.  Christian Reconstructionism has always promoted a “bottom-up” motif for the expansion of the Kingdom – not a “top-down” motif.  It is through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit that hearts will be changed and converts will then become desirous of being submissive to God’s law.  It will be very democratic.  We have no desire to be tyrants.

As Mr. Tuininga laments the thought of the impact of God’s law as a standard for American society, it also goes unnoticed that America is presently living off of the borrowed capital of the influence of Christianity on this nation.  He is enjoying the fruits of a nation originally constructed on the basis of such things as a Christian view of money, marriage, and the limitations of civil government.

If Mr. Tuininga believes that America is not in decline, I might wonder where he is living – on the moon?   With the legalization of homosexual marriage in many states, it hardly seems a debatable issue.  My thesis is that the modern church has failed to speak out when it had the opportunity.  Persecution may come, and if it does, we must not simply find joy in the suffering imposed upon us by a sovereign God, but rather consider it to be the fault of a silent church that did not speak the truth at the right time.  In avoiding persecution by not speaking to the issues of the day, we only “kicked the can down the road” and guaranteed persecution for our children and our children’s children.

Mr. Tuininga is like all of us.  He quotes his Scripture texts selectively.  Indeed, we ought to pray that we can live a “peaceful and quiet life,” but, too, let us not forget that we also are “are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (II Corinthians 10:5)

If our American founding fathers had followed the passive motif of living quietly and silently in a culture of decline and oppression, then they would not have been brave enough to declare independence from the despot King George of England.  Spiritual pacifism in the midst of a culture war is not a Christian virtue.  Also, I can assure Mr. Tuininga that he would be much happier and more secure living in a nation ruled by God’s law rather than by man’s law.

Larry E. Ball is a retired Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and a CPA. He lives in Fleming Island, Florida.