Recommended Reading: salad
(a) He sets forth eloquently the beauty of a society governed by biblical law: a society where the power of the state is strictly limited (pp. 429f, passim); where eminent domain belongs to God alone, not to the state (pp. 492f, 499ff); where there are no property taxes (pp. 56, 283), no expropriations beyond the tithes (pp. 846ff), but where welfare is effectively provided through covenantal institutions; where all citizens expose and prosecute criminals (pp. 271, 463ff); where criminals are responsible to make restitution to their victims (p. 272); where crime is rare because habitual and serious offenders are promptly executed and because others are caught and forced to make restitution, a society without prisons and the farce of pseudo-rehabilitation (pp. 228ff, 458ff, 514ff); where war is not permitted to take precedence over every other human activity (pp. 277ff); where the environment is protected by following the instructions of its Creator (pp. 141ff, 164ff).
(b) Where the biblical laws at first glance appear not to be so beautiful, but rather (to our humanist-indoctrinated minds) to be strange, trivial, or even cruel, Rushdoony effectively explains the divine logic underlying them. The denial of full citizenship to eunuchs (p. 100), the execution of blasphemers (pp. 106ff) and incorrigible juvenile delinquents (pp. 185ff, 48lff), the prohibition of taking a mother bird together with her young (pp. 169, 257, 267), the levirate (pp. 308f), the dowry legislation (pp. 185ff, 48lff) and other perplexing biblical statutes are cogently defended.
(c) Besides showing the inherent logic of biblical law, Rushdoony shows how that biblical law has been used through history, how its observance has brought about justice and happiness in many societies, and how its abandonment has brought about cultural disaster. He is quite specific with regard to American culture, and advocates dramatic changes in our legal and institutional structure. His strongest and most frequent polemic is against “statism,” the view that the state has the right to tax, control, and disturb all areas of human life. In that regard, his rhetoric closely resembles that of political conservatism which, indeed, he acknowledges as resting on Christianity to an extent (p. 289). Yet he strongly opposes laissez faire capitalism (pp. 288ff, 432f, 472) as a deification of the abstract laws of economics. Rushdoony’s proposals really do not fit very well under any contemporary label, and that in itself is an index of his zeal to follow Scripture rather than to please men.
Finally, I’d suggest that Rushdoony has more influence than many would like to admit these days – hence Caleb Hayden‘s comment in his Amazon review:
Rushdoony influenced many prominent and visible leaders in Christian circles today, even though many of these men are afraid to identify with him for fear that their reputations will be tarnished. Most people do not want to be thought of as radical, but Rushdoony had a different mentality. That is why, love him or hate him, a student of theology, philosophy, history, and law can greatly benefit from Rushdoony’s distinctly Christian analysis and critique of society.
See also, Jeff Sharlet, The Family, pp. 347-351.
In a second follow up, I’ll present a case where similar governmental practices resulted from arguable similarities between particular Christian and Islamic worldviews, and offer a comment on the degree to which even jihadists may not be directly attempting world conquest in the name of Islam.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Madhu:
July 24th, 2012 at 3:28 am
But some people do use the term Christianist in an ad hoc and rather insulting way within our domestic left-rigth partisan political discourse. The implication is intended, I think, to create a moral equivalence in order to insult, to say, “look, you are just like that, too.” Not always, but sometimes it happens like that in the partisan world.
.
Or maybe not. I don’t know. I’ve tuned out the partisan stuff to a large extent and am not following a lot of the arguments. I have certainly gone on a strange and twisting intellectual journey around here, haven’t I?
Charles Cameron:
July 24th, 2012 at 6:08 am
Hi Madhu:
.
I think the usage of “Christianist” I mentioned dating back to James Hillman (1992 or earlier) easily predates the usage of “Islamist” referring to jihadist or “covert jihadist” thinking. Whether it has now also picked up a sort of parallelism by osmosis, I can;t say — but it’s entirely possible.
Madhu:
July 24th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“….sort of parallelism by osmosis,….”
.
Oh, now that is what I wanted to say. Are you all discussing apples and oranges, parallelisms and orignal meanings?
.
Now that is why I am addicted to your blogging, although, I admit, I don’t have the time to comment and read as much anymore. It’s this or other things and other things (pretending to write fiction and essays) are currently winning out.
.
I don’t know much but I do know that hanging out with people that are smarter than you is like doing crunches or something, it firms you up. Theoretically. Middle-age is hard on a gal, sometimes. I have zero sympathy for the generational angst from older military folk toward younger folk that I encounter on milblogs sometimes. “Suck it up,” I think, “you think middle age is hard on a guy? Well, maybe so, but suck it up anyways.”
Madhu:
July 24th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
I really am all about the TMI? Why I resist Twitter is beyond me.
Madhu:
July 24th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I think I am circling up to it, though. My first tweet will be “This is my first tweet. I already hate it.”
.
I miss Carl Prine’s Line of Departure already. You really could say anything and fun was as much a part of it as discussing military issues seriously.