How do the reconstructionists consolidate their ideas with; "My kingdom is not of this world"?
The foundation of dominion theology is a misconstruction of Genesis 1:28 to apply man’s dominion over the creatures of the world to include other humans and their secular governments and institutions, etc. What they fail to account for is the fact that this was at that time “a no-sin” universe! The truth is that Adam was to rule [under-shepherd] a theocratic kingdom – had not sinned entered in – however after sin entered in, a human theocracy even under God proved to fail (i.e. Israel), not because of God, but man (Heb 8:8). However, this was part and parcel of God’s eternal plan and not until the second and last Man Adam (Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 15;45, 47) came to inaugurate His kingdom do we see it in its fuller form (different and perfect administration, Heb. 8:6ff). We are now in the continuation phase of His Kingdom [without a physical sword] and we are to look forward to “His” consummation of the Kingdom. Thus, right now we are in the “now, but not yet” phase of the Kingdom (same Kingdom in parallel spheres) and not the “now, yes now” Reconstruction of the Kingdom.
But to be fair, Bahnsen answers your question directly,
Quote
In this famous passage from John's gospel [John 18:36] Jesus was speaking of the origin of his kingdom and authority, as the careful reader can clearly see from the end of the verse cited. Explaining that his servants do not take up arms to fight in his defense, Jesus said "thus my kingdom is not from here." The kingdom of Christ does not originate – like that of Pilate or Rome itself – from the created order, nor is it based upon the mere authority of men. It is "not of this world," but rather a kingdom granted from above, by God Himself. This kingdom does not advance by means of military power and threats, but through the power of preaching and bearing witness to the truth (John 18:37; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5).
Quote
Adopted said,
Is it a postmillenial eschatology (or something else) that might be driving these reconstructionists in the first place?
Though many in the post-mil camp embrace Recon, and Bahnsen states, “Its essential optimism for the present age. This confident attitude in the power of Christ's kingdom, the power of the gospel, the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit, the power of prayer, and the progress of the great commission, sets postmillennialism apart from the essential pessimism of amillennialism and premillennialism” (“The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism," in The Journal of Christian Reconstructionism, Vol. III, No. 2, (Winter, 1976-77), pp. 66-67.) the Post-Mil Camp are not the only ones deluded by it.
J. Ligon Duncan III I believe answers your question more fully saying,
Quote
….Its most common form, Theonomic Reconstructionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christian thought. It originated in the United States from the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition. Its goal is the peaceful conversion of the United States government to a theocracy, which is based on the Mosaic Law of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which the entire world is converted to Christianity.
They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it if it is properly presented to them.
All religions other than Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian institutions would no longer be allowed to function. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and exterminated. Blasphemy, (defined by them), adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would be executed. To our knowledge, this is the only religious movement in North America in which many of its members advocate genocide for followers of minority religions. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group of the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society.”
Quote
Adopted said, I do believe that premillenial dispensationalism has had a devastating and destructive impact on American foreign policy. Might not this "reconstructionism" have the same negative and damaging impact on American internal affairs?
I believe the answer is yes, and not only yes, but YES! As much evil, downtrodding, and mistruth that the systems of dispensationalism and other such views have corroded the true fabric of Christianity, Reconstructionism, FV, Theonomy (yes, there are minor differences to some) corrode not just the fabric, but are strangling what truth is left in the Reformed Community. I believe if the present course of the church continues without taking strict discipline on these and other issues [i.e. worship] the very framework of the truth will continue to be undermined to such an extent that the “waxing worse and worse” portion of Scripture will come to its total fulfillment in our generation (1 Tim 3:13)! Come Lord Jesus, Come!
Though I am not a Piper fanatic I like his answer here:
Quote
The closer we get to Dominion Theology the closer we get to living by the sword. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world my disciples would fight." This seems to mean that we are not moving toward a true understanding of the kingdom of God in this world as we move toward a greater and greater use of the sword to authorize kingdom values.
It is not the priests who are given the sword but the magistrates. And the magistrates rule not by virtue of their claim to revelation but by virtue of their claim to providential authorization. In some cultures this providential authorization has been through a line of kings, in other cultures through various contests, and in our own culture through a democratic representative process.
It seems that the theocratic ideal of Israel in the Old Testament was specifically abandoned in the New Testament as the Gospel ceased to be focused on an ethnic and political reality called Israel (Matt. 21:43) and became a multicultural, multiethnic worldwide movement without ethnic or political definition. It will be fitting, when Christ returns, that he be given the right to establish a kingdom of more specific political boundaries. But in the meantime we do well to exert our influence in ways that do not put the sword into the hands of the priests.
