Rushdoony on the State

Thus the true church in every age has a mission to the state, to proclaim the fall of Babylon, to declare to the state that civil government can endure only under God and in obedience to His word, that every attempt of civil government to become as god, to be the purveyor of grace and of paradise, is damned and doomed. The cleansing of civil government and the indictment of it by the word must be the task of the church in every age.

Rousas Rushdoony in Thy Kingdom Come, p.178.

Rushdoony and Radical Libertarianism

Rousas Rushdoony wrote,

Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had (Roots of Reconstruction, p.63).

Chris Ortiz has explained that Rushdoony describes theocracy as a "radical libertarianism" because morality is lived out and scrutinized around a minimal state, or civil government. In this sense, Rushdoony is truly libertarian, as set over against those seeking only to get civil government out of the bedroom and their stash of pot:

The state in Scripture is a minimal institution, and so too is the church as an institution. The rule of God's law is essentially through the lives of men as they apply their faith, and as they create tithe agencies to govern various areas and needs. Where faith wanes, then theocracy wanes (Systematic Theology p.1141).

Rushdoony and Government

Rousas Rushdoony was very clear that we should not try to re-capture or take back existing institutions. We should create alternative institutions. He put most of his efforts into doing this for educations.

We must apply the same approach to politics. We should not try to take back the existing institutions, as the Christian Right have done. We should creat alternative institutions, that can eventually replace them.

Christians should start building an alternative justice system in their local communities. If their judges provide good justice, people will bring their cases to them. (In New Zealand, we can use the second clause of the Treaty of Waitangi as basis for an alternative justice system).

The biblical pattern is the law at the top, self disciplined men at the bottom and a system of appeal courts in between (Gary North - Unconditional Surrender, p 140).

Rousas J Rushdoony

In my view, the most important theologian of the twentieth century was Rousas J Rushdoony (1916-2001). In his Institutes of Biblical Law (Craig Press 1973), he clearly demonstrated that God’s law provides the best standard for an orderly society. He single-handedly set about restoring God’s law to his rightful place. He wrote,

Authority can come from God or the people. If God is the source of authority, his word should prevail. If the latter is true, the will of the people should be done.

Despite his wisdom, Rushdoony missed out on one key point. He did not understand the role of judges in implementing the law. The reason for this blind spot was that he believed that the US constitution was an inspired document. He believed that restoring the principles of the constitution would lead to the implementation of biblical law. His son-in-law Gary North proved in Political Polytheism that the constitution was actually the work of men who were opposed to God, so Rushdoony’s faith in the constitution was unfounded. This error prevented him from seeing that honouring God’s law was not enough. We also need a system of godly judges to apply that law.

Despite this blind spot, his knowledge of God’s law was colossal. Anyone who wants to understand God’s purpose for law and government should read his writings.

Rootless

Modern man seeks rootlessness; his love of urban life is grounded in the desire for anonymity. When he shows a taste for rural life, it is not neighborliness and roots he seeks, but Nature, so that his anti-urban motives are as rootless as his urban life. The family means roots; it means relationships, responsibilities, children, parents, in-laws, relatives, and the rooted routine of a household.
R. J. Rushdoony