Talk:Christian reconstructionism

Class rating

No insult intended to any previous editors, but this article still needs major work (just look at the number of non-referenced sections). It's not at a 'B' class in my opinion. The Squicks (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

Footnotes 6, 7 and 8 (as I write) are *all* dead. 86.132.141.169 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kinism

Kinism redirects here, but there is currently no mention of Kinism in this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done more research and it looks like Kinism has more in common with Christian Identity (to which it is virtually identical) than Reconstructionism. I'm altering the redir accordingly. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible first point

"# Calvinism, for its description individual spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit that is required to change people on a personal level before any positive cultural changes can occur," This sentence makes absolutely no sense. I'd fix it myself but I can't because I have no idea what is supposed to be expressed. 83.226.206.82 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article does not adequately convey the extreme positions of Reconstructionism on social issues. Well known Reconstructionists have publicly advocated death by stoning for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, "unchastity before marriage" (for women only), abortion, and advising a woman to get an abortion. The current article says only that they support recriminalization of abortion and homosexuality. While technically accurate, it is misleadingly vague.

While the article states that they "make no pretense of subscribing to" pluralism and tolerance, their stated goals are markedly more extreme and militant. North states, "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." In short, he (and they) favor destruction of the current political and social fabric and the replacement of it with an explicitly Christian one.

I agree, more detail would help put this article in clearer context. Please, provide reputable citations so we can get that detail included. Uberhill 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

67.165.141.125 (talk)Dr. H. Joel Jeffrey, Ph.D. —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC).

Talk:Jesuism

User Ian.Thomson mooted that the slim content there be merged here a few months ago. Maybe time to take up the idea? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Christian Reconstructionism is about as un-Jesus-like as any branch of Christianity and seems diametrically opposed to Jesuism by definition. If you're going to merge stuff here, merge things like Prosperity Gospel, Dominionism, the Market Church, etc., which are physically linked, historically, to this topic, or merge this topic into Dominionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to delete this poorly referenced and unreferenced nonsense?

The article has several reference-related boxes in it which date back to 2007. 5 years, folks. At this point, it's pretty obvious that no references are forthcoming and no one is going to bother to improve the article. As it stands, the article is a failure and should be removed. 67.233.242.65 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North articles should be enough to demonstrate that there are references out there. Reconstructionism has gone mainstream within evangelical Christianity, so it's still an important topic. Michael J. McVicar has written a few good articles; Max Blumenthal, Frank Schaeffer and others have written about it since 2007. We shouldn't conflate "the article is not moving" with "the topic is dead". -Sigeng (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Reconstructionism has in no way gone mainstream in evangelical Christianity. Can people play "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" with Rushdoony and North? Absolutely. Could we argue that evangelicals, without realizing it, have incorporated some vaguely Rushdoony-ish stuff into their outlook. Maybe. But "Reconstructionism has gone mainstream with evangelical Christianity" is a stretch. Do major Christian bookstores sell Rushdoony's work? Does Gary North get invited to any serious major evangelical events? Does Christianity Today debate the latest books coming out of American Vision? Is there a major televangelist, anywhere, who recommends people read start applying Old Testament civil law in detail? Of course not. Alephb (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Armstrong's characterization of reconstructionism

Armstrong did not characterize the theologians as "totalitarian" but rather the Dominion that they think will come. It is the difference between a namecalling personal attack and expressing opinion about the substance. The passage was once more fairly characterized in the past, but was changed here [1]. Poodleboy (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Reconstructionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041215174321/http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=30 to http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2c6a_47e.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/219e_47e.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"active homosexuals"

Under the "Theonomy" subsection, the article currently says that "Prominent advocates of Christian reconstructionism have written that ... God's law approves the death penalty for ... active homosexuals." The sole source cited for this, Gary DeMar's Ruler of the Nations, p. 212, says that, in a hypothetical reconstructionist world, "Homosexuals who practice behind closed doors are out-of-bounds for the courts, of course, unless others witness their homosexual behavior. ... The law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back to the closet, to the dark realm of shameful activity."

The wording in the article could be misleading, then, because of the distinction sometimes made between "active" and "passive" homosexuals (i.e. that during a sex act one person is "active" and the other "passive"). DeMar isn't saying that the "active partner" is subject to the death penalty; he is saying that homosexuals who commit "their criminal behavior" in public are subject to the death penalty.

I'm not sure of the best way to word this, but "active homosexuals" could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusions. Alephb (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

New information?

I see at the top of this page it says, "This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (September 2021)." This is rather mysterious. Was the person thinking of something in particular? How is an aspiring editor supposed to know what they're talking about? Inquiring minds want to know... Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 02:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)