By / Sep 24

What is the relationship of Old Testament laws to the American government? How ought Christians respond to the decline of cultural influence? What are the ways that Christians exercise power within the public square? These are some of the questions that animate Christian Reconstructionists, a group that likely is less well known than broader denominational or theological identities such as Baptist, Catholic, evangelical, or Reformed. Crawford Gribben sheds light on this group in his book, Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America: Christian Reconstruction in the Pacific Northwest. While the ERLC does not subscribe to the tenets of Christian Reconstructionism, it is important to understand this numerically small but influentially growing movement, as Gribben’s work shows. 

In Gribben’s recent study of the movement, particularly in the community centered around Moscow, Idaho, he found that these evangelical Christians were continually navigating the tension between resisting the wider culture around them because of its rejection of Christian values and hopefully expecting that there would be a cultural renewal and return to God’s laws and standards, though likely not in their lifetime. Though a numerically small group, these Reformed evangelicals have shown themselves to be adept at marshalling soft influence through avenues such as publishing, homeschooling curriculum, and the founding of a Christian liberal arts college. Gribben’s study is an excellent introduction to the lived realities of this movement, its history, and the ways that theological principles have practical outputs in the project of cultural renewal. 

Gribben, a professor of religious history at Queen’s University Belfast, was kind enough to answer a few questions related to the movement and his scholarship. 

Your book is a study of Christian Reconstructionists, a particular group of Reformed evangelicals rooted in the writing of R.J. Rushdoony, and more recently pastor Douglas Wilson. What are the distinctives of this movement? 

Christian Reconstruction is the name of the social theory that an Armenian-American Presbyterian minister, R.J. Rushdoony, began to develop in the late 1950s. As its descriptor suggests, it’s a social theory that argues that modern societies should be reorganized in terms of biblical law. While the movement is varied, its advocates tend to argue that the judicial laws in the Mosaic covenant, as a reflection of the “general equity” of the moral law, as the Westminster Confession puts it, should be adopted by modern states. This position is often described as “theonomy.” But Reconstructionists don’t just argue that these laws should be adopted by modern states — they also expect that these laws will be adopted by modern states. Their confidence that modern states will be reconstructed according to biblical law reflects their widespread commitment to “postmillennialism” — the expectation that the preaching of the gospel in this age will result in extraordinary revivals, to the extent that, before the return of Christ, the global population will in large part be regarded as Christian. 

These ideas — “theonomy” and “postmillennialism” — might seem strange, even outlandish, to modern evangelicals. But these claims, and others like them, were made by reformers and Puritans. In fact, many of the colonies that came to make up the states of New England were led by ministers and theologians who were committed to these views. What makes Christian Reconstruction so distinctive within the broader cultures of evangelicalism is that its arguments are being made in a religious landscape that has largely abandoned claims that were once normative within American Protestantism to embrace instead the principled pluralism of the American constitutional tradition.

The plan proposed by the community in the American Redoubt (Idaho, Montana, Wyomin, and the easter portions of Washington and Oregon) shares some similarity to that of others, such as Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Is this just a wider dissatisfaction with American culture, or is there something unique going on with those who are moving to the Redoubt?

Yes, there are similarities between the kinds of people who are moving into the Redoubt and those who are attracted to Dreher’s Benedict Option. In fact, Dreher has explained that he had intended to include in his book a chapter on the Moscow, Idaho, church that is led by Doug Wilson, until some controversial decisions made by congregational leaders relating to the pastoral care of a sexual offender changed his mind. But there are also some important differences between the Reconstructionists and Benedict Option Christians. Most importantly, while both groups are withdrawing to a large extent from mainstream society, the Reconstructionists do so with much greater confidence they are building communities that will survive the crisis in American culture and that will emerge to create, entirely organically, the institutions that will hold together the new — and newly Christian — United States. I think it’s also important to note that the Benedict Option idea appeals to Catholic and Orthodox groups. Christian Reconstructionists tend to be emphatically protestant (though their protestant credentials have been questioned by some of their critics, especially in relation to the “federal vision” theology with which Wilson has in the past been associated).

In the book, you emphasize the role that the group’s theology plays, particularly their postmillennial eschatology. Why does this cause them to react differently than other evangelicals to a shifting culture? 

Well, as Wilson put it in one of our conversations, it’s so much easier to play when you know you’re on the winning team. While lots of larger evangelical communities are losing ground — at least in the sense of shrinking membership — the Moscow, Idaho, community is pushing forward with some very ambitious plans. They make no secret of their intention to make Moscow a Christian town — nor of their expectation that the world will be converted to Christ. I think this expectation provides this community with a very distinctive confidence. While other groups of evangelicals are scanning the headlines for the signs of the times, or are persuading each other not to “polish the brass on a sinking ship,” as some premillennial critics of social action put it, the Moscow Christians and their Reconstructionist fellow travelers are developing concrete plans to survive and resist what they perceive to be an extraordinary moral collapse. And they’ve been very successful. 

In Moscow, they have established a classical Christian school — one of the founding institutions of a network of similar schools, whose conference was addressed in 2019 by Senator Ben Sasse — as well as a high quality liberal arts college and music conservatory. Members of the congregations associated with this community run very successful businesses, including the publishing house that does most to promote the group’s ideas. Overall, they’ve created an ecosystem that publicizes their ideas, that encourages migration into the area, that supports new arrivals with employment opportunities, school and other educational ventures — and this kind of growth is, of course, positioning the community as the fulfilment of its own prophetic expectations. Success breeds success — and so it will be interesting to see how Wilson’s new Amazon talk-show, “Man Rampant,” contributes to this positive feedback loop. 

There is a consistent theme of the tension between rhetoric and theology, most clearly in the renewed interest in the theology of the “lesser magistrate.” How does this work itself out for the congregants who are not actively looking to take up arms against the government, but do exist in a culture where that is possible and sensationalized (as with the fiction novels you mention)?

That’s an interesting question. Very few of the people we met while doing fieldwork for this book were interested in talking about taking up arms against the government – and none of those who did were attending Wilson’s church. I think a lot of the discussion about “resistance” is largely rhetorical. The old protestant doctrine of the “lesser magistrate” is certainly important in these circles. But the small number of Christian Reconstructionists who have turned toward violence — like Paul Jennings Hill — have been consistently denounced by thought leaders in the movement. All of the people we met within the Moscow congregation were living what might in other circumstances be regarded as fairly ordinary lives — working, shopping, going to church, and so on. The more militia-orientated people tended to prefer to keep themselves to themselves.

For many of the Reconstructionists, it is through cultural renewal, rather than political or violent action, that America can be saved. This is, as you note, one of the problems that Rushdoony had with the Religious Right in the 70s and 80s: they focused on political power rather than spiritual regeneration. How has the modern movement tried to focus on this goal of cultural renewal? What is their hope in the long term for America?

As I said before, members of the Christian Reconstruction movement work for and expect to contribute to the conversion of the United States. And that word “conversion” is key. The emphasis in their writing and speaking is not on coercing citizens into a Christian republic — despite the claims of their critics. Instead, Reconstructionists argue that as individuals are converted, they will influence their families for Christ; as families are converted, they will influence their neighborhoods for Christ; and so on. They expect a bottom-up transformation of American society, not any kind of transformation imposed from the top-down. That’s why these believers tend to avoid any participation in politics — even at a local level. While they might enjoy talking about the reconstruction of the legal system, or tax codes, they are often kept busy enough building Christian families, running businesses that reflect their Christian commitments, and going to church. In fact, you might say that in day-to-day life most of these believers are indistinguishable from their evangelical neighbors — except that, when they pray “thy kingdom come,” they expect to see it happen before the return of Christ, and they anticipate that their everyday lives will make a real contribution to that end.

Much of the book is built around the community in the American Redoubt, and particularly in Moscow, Idaho. Even the magazine, Credenda Agenda, as you note promulgated old ideas and new books, “but most of all it sold the community that was gathering around [Doug] Wilson’s ministry” (115). What is the role of the community for this movement, and how does that shape their activity?

The idea of community is really at the heart of this project, I think. From the 1990s, Credenda Agenda  — the magazine that did most to promote the group’s ideas — was never about one man. Instead, it brought together a range of writers who were capable of producing smart, satirical, and theologically sophisticated arguments. The letters page of each issue showed that readers found what they read attractive. They liked the idea of being part of that kind of community. And the institutions that this group established were designed to reinforce that community — a K-12 classical Christian school, then a liberal arts college, and so on — all taking their place in the positive feedback loop that I mentioned before. Online testimonies from some of the most recent migrants into the area still emphasize that this idea of community — maybe even ideal of community — is what drew them to Moscow. 

This group isn’t numerically large, and you even state that they don’t exist inside the religious mainstream. However, they are becoming increasingly influential. How so?

You’re right — the community isn’t especially large — in fact it’s tiny by comparison with many megachurches, even in Idaho. But this group projects its soft power very deliberately and very effectively. Wilson’s most recent venture — the Amazon talk-show called “Man Rampant” — seems to be surviving on that platform. Wilson has a nose for publicity. He co-authored a book with Christopher Hitchens and participated in a hymn sing in Moscow that resulted in arrests and attention on Twitter from President Trump. There is a real sense of crisis in American culture at the moment. This group’s influence is growing because they know how to articulate what might be at stake in that crisis, and how to present a response to that crisis that turns it into a single moment in the great sweep of victory by which the “kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ” (Rev. 11:15). And that’s why their influence is only likely to grow.

By / Feb 19

On Tuesday of this week, James Coates, the pastor of GraceLife Church outside the city of Edmonton, turned himself in to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) after violating public health restrictions related to COVID-19. According to the RCMP, Coates was arrested and charged “with two counts of contravention of the Public Health Act (PHA) and charged for failing to comply with a condition of his undertaking, under the Criminal Code.”

The conflict dates back to December when Coates and GraceLife were fined for noncompliance with public health mandates. At that time, the church was reportedly issued an official warning and instructed to “ensure people in the church are wearing face coverings when in the building, ensure members of different households keep at least two metres apart, provide [Alberta Health Services] with information about the building’s capacity and to not exceed the limit of 15 percent of total capacity at any one time.”

In spite of the warning, Coates and GraceLife have continued to hold services in defiance of the orders, specifically exceeding the 15% capacity limit. As a result, the AHS ordered the church closed in January, but the church refused to comply with the order. According to the attorney representing Coates, the RCMP met with Coates after the service on February 7, charged him for violating the PHA, and presented him with a notice of the charges the RCMP might bring against him. The church held services again on February 14. Coates was subsequently asked to turn himself into authorities, which he did on Tuesday.

At a bail hearing on Wednesday morning, Coates was set to be released from custody on the condition that he would comply with the PHA’s COVID-19 restrictions going forward. However, Coates stated that he would not abide by the conditions of his release. As a result, his bail was denied and Coates remains in custody.

As explained below, the decision to jail Pastor Coates is wrong, and the ERLC calls for his immediate release. 

What are the COVID-19 restrictions in Canada?

Government restrictions in Canada vary from province to province and are phased based on the current severity of the pandemic. GraceLife Church is in the province of Alberta, which has a population just over 4 million. 

Presently, Alberta is experiencing a decline in new COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. On Tuesday, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, reported “263 new cases . . . with 365 people in [the] hospital, and 56 in intensive care.” However, the situation was much worse back in December “when the government put in lockdown rules as it dealt with close to 1,900 new cases a day and had more than 800 hospitalized.”

Under the most recent public health orders in Alberta, houses of worship are allowed to hold: 1) drive-in worship services without restrictions provided that attendees remain in their vehicles; and 2) indoor worship services provided that attendance does not exceed 15% of the facility’s capacity according to the fire code. For services taking place indoors, masks are also required as they are at most indoor public gatherings in Alberta. 

In late January, Grace Life was cited for multiple violations by the authorities. The official notice cites the following violations:

  • “More than 290 people attending the church service on Jan. 24, in excess of the 15 per cent total operational occupancy load as per the Alberta Fire Code.”
  • “Church attendees, staff/volunteers were observed unmasked in the church lobby and in the sanctuary.”
  • “It appeared that church attendees, staff/volunteers were not maintaining at least two meters physical distancing from other households.”

Should Pastor Coates be in jail?

No. The government clearly has a responsibility—and God-given authority—to protect public health and safety in light of the ongoing threats of COVID-19. But nearly a year into the pandemic, jailing pastors for holding worship services is an unacceptable breach of the church–state relationship and an alarming overreach of government authority.

Since the beginning of the pandemic in the United States, the ERLC has called for church leaders and government officials to view one another as partners and allies in the fight to combat the spread of the coronavirus. Further, we have urged governments to issue guidance, rather than mandates, to churches and houses of worship. This applies to Canada, as well.

Facts on the ground, as well as risks, vary substantially from community to community. In issuing guidelines, the government better equips pastors and faith leaders to make responsible and informed decisions on behalf of their own congregations. Conversely, mandates (often) bring about unnecessary restrictions and limit the ability of the faith community to practice their beliefs and respond effectively to urgent needs.

Jailing Pastor Coates only inflames tensions and creates hostility between people of faith and government officials. And it does so at a time when trust and cooperation between civil and religious leaders are desperately needed. The government has other enforcement tools that are more reasonable given the sensitive circumstances.

What should the government do in these circumstances?

Whenever possible, opening clear lines of communication is the best path forward. The overwhelming majority of religious leaders (whether in the United States or Canada) are not interested in a public or avoidable clash with government officials. 

In many cases, issues between houses of worship and state and local governments have been resolved simply through good faith efforts to communicate with each other. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen new and important partnerships forged between church leaders and local officials in various parts of the United States. These relationships have not only eased immediate tensions, but have laid the groundwork for future partnerships to better serve these communities. We have also witnessed (and taken part) in the resolution of a number of issues of this nature spanning from minor problems with city councils to larger concerns at the state level. In the majority of these cases, efforts to communicate the concerns of local pastors to elected officials have resulted in reasonable accommodations being made.

As mentioned, government officials have a clear interest and responsibility to safeguard public health. In some cases, the highly infectious nature of the coronavirus has required governments to place limitations on public gatherings, including religious gatherings. But such limitations must be carefully considered, in ways that respect the authority and independence of religious institutions as far as possible. And whatever means government may use to enforce these measures, it should be beyond dispute that jailing pastors for noncompliance is a bridge too far.

What should Christians do in these circumstances?

Religious leaders, especially Christian pastors, have a duty to take the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic seriously. The New Testament repeatedly underscores the significance of loving our neighbors well (Lk. 10:25-37) and considering the needs of others ahead of our own (Phil. 2:4). Similarly, Christians are also charged to be in submission to civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-14) and to be good citizens who strive to live peaceful and quiet lives (1 Tim. 2:1-4). And in the midst of a global pandemic, the people of God should endeavor to serve and sacrifice for the sake of others.

But this submission and deference is not without limitations. As Peter said, before our duty to obey political authorities, Christians have a duty to obey God (Acts 5:29). While Christians should make every effort to obey and be at peace with civil authorities, our primary allegiance is owed to God alone. 

For at least several more months, governments at various levels will continue to balance public health concerns with various interests including religious freedom. The ERLC continues to urge churches to cooperate, where possible, with public health guidance to advance our common goal of bringing the pandemic to an end. But more importantly, the ERLC strongly condemns the RCMP’s decision to jail Pastor James Coates.

Where necessary, we encourage churches to embrace practices such as masking and distancing.  And we reject the idea that such requirements represent a significant affront to religious freedom. But there is no excuse for this inflammatory action by the RCMP. And it should be immediately remedied through his release.