Kirk Cameron and Christian Reconstructionism

[gustava]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... ctionism_/

Based on pre-release clips and interviews, many observers, myself included, noted the ties between Cameron’s experts (especially David Barton and Herb Titus) and Christian Reconstruction. But as I sat in the theater recently, I was stunned at how thoroughly the film was shaped by the worldview articulated by Rushdoony a half century ago. I never expected to see “my folks†(as we ethnographers call the people we study) on the big screen in a packed theater (one of 550 nationwide) presenting the Rushdoony worldview to unsuspecting evangelicals, homeschoolers, and tea partiers.

Interesting article on a site that an FJer mentioned, and which I now have bookmarked: religiondispatches.org.

[debrand]

Postmillennialism, an end-times theology that challenges contemporary rapture theology, claims that the kingdom of God was established at the resurrection and is being realized as Christianity spreads across the world through the exercise of dominion. Its popularized versions are “dominion theology†and the effort to “restore America’s foundation†as a “Christian nation.â€

Theonomy is the view that all law must be based in God’s law, which is to say biblical law. Reconstructionists look to ancient Israel as the model for society and to the Puritans as an exemplar of the modern application of biblical law. They argue for a distinction between theonomy and the more commonly used theocracy on the basis of what they claim is a biblical division of earthly authority set forth by God.

The irony is that they are promoting an overly positive, false view of American history while simultaneously trying to destroy the constitution.

The Puritans wanted freedom to follow THEIR version of Christianity. Although I understand that they were products of their time, I can't fanthom why anyone would believe that the Puritans are examples for modern people to follow.

[fluttershies]

In any case, Puritanism in Britain was quite different to that in America - and it was only in Britain that it was made law. In Britain, men were fined if they didn't satisfy their wives enough sexually (based on 1 Corinthians), and I can't see a fundie wanting to bring that back ;)

[Olive Plant]

In any case, Puritanism in Britain was quite different to that in America - and it was only in Britain that it was made law. In Britain, men were fined if they didn't satisfy their wives enough sexually (based on 1 Corinthians), and I can't see a fundie wanting to bring that back ;)

That's amazing. Do you have a reference or link for that?

[Kaylee]

That's amazing. Do you have a reference or link for that?

Not Britain, but here's a link to a book where it mentions a case in Massachusetts http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ezv ... &q&f=false

Rykens "Worldy Saints" talks about it to. It was apparently pretty common for men to be placed under church discipline or even excommunicated for failing to satisfy their wives in bed (there are several court and church records from the time that mention it), and a wife could be granted a divorce if her husband was impotent.