Above Rubies Part 2: Reconstructionist Roots
- mercynotsacrifice
- Feb 15, 2019
- 12 min read
Updated: Jul 23, 2020
Problem #2: Reconstructionist Roots
Another term that people should know if they want to dabble with Quiverfull teachings is "Christian Reconstructionism".
It is an only slightly more extreme version of Domionism and also Covenant Theology (which teaches that the Church has replaced Israel). A helpful article explains: "The 'Christian' Reconstruction movement (CRM) claims that believers possess a cultural mandate from God to reclaim in this age dominion over human society ... as believers obey this mandate, gradually gaining dominion over earthly society, this present world will supposedly become 'Christianized,' inaugurating the Millennium. In reality, if effected, the entire earthly society would be placed under an O.T. 'Theonomy' law system, rather than the N.T. teaching of believers as a group of 'called out' saints from the world. They want to apply Old Testament law to today's society. This includes slavery as an alternative to prisons and capital punishment for a variety of offenses (murder, homosexuality, etc.). This view advocates the reconstruction of society as a theocracy and is heavily postmillennial. ... A central piece of [Dominionism/Reconstructionism] is its belief in covenant theology. As a result, it makes no distinction between the church and Israel (i.e., the church has become 'spiritual Israel'). However, [Dominionism/Reconstructionism] goes beyond traditional covenant theology and teaches that the church is to be governed by the same laws, is subject to the same curses, and is promised the same blessings as Israel" (emphasis added). More info here.
That ability to apply the Old Testament to today's Christians is absolutely crucial to allow Nancy's teachings to fly. While most Reconstructionists focus more on the reinstatement of the Mosaic Law as the climax of their national dominion, Quiverfull places its attention on OT promises and "principles", because they are needed to prove that reproduction is the manner in which the former will be achieved.
"God's will is always for His people to increase and fill the land with the godly, revealing His love and truth."
That statement was concluded from verses about the specific growth of Israel as a nation at the time and have nothing to do with God's people today. The following quotes shed more light on how Above Rubies justifies their universal application of commands that were intended for specific people. The idea that descriptive parts of the Bible contain "principles" that can rule our lives is not always wrong, but definitely a red flag for legalism.
"We continue to look at the seven points which God commanded the Jews to do while they were in captivity. ... 'Multiply there and do not decrease' [Jeremiah 29] verse 6. God specifically commands them not to decrease! Isn’t it sad that many believers in God are set on doing the opposite to His plan? They would much rather decrease than increase. They would rather follow the devils [sic] plan to eliminate life than to multiply life. Consequently, there is a whole army of God’s people who are missing today!"
"We get a glimpse of what God wants it to be like when we read about the land He promised to His people, Israel. Although the promises about the land are literally for Israel, because God gave the land to them as an everlasting covenant, they also present a picture of how He wants us to live."
"Genesis 1:28: 'And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.' God has never rescinded these words. They stand forever. If we discard them because we think we know better, we disobey God’s powerful and living Word."
"I am always amazed as I read God's Word to find how practical it is for our daily lives. God comes down to our 'nitty gritty' and leaves us in no doubt as to how He wants us to live. In Jeremiah 29:5-11 God gives a message through the prophet to the Jews who were taken captive to Babylon. It is a practical message reminding them of His original plan. Remember, this is a message to people living in captivity! They are no longer living in the freedom of their own country, but God doesn't change His plan according to circumstances. God's eternal principles work in every situation."
"In Scripture the 'law of the first mention' is very important. When God says something the first time in the Scriptures, we must take note. He lays the foundation for that truth. He may enlarge upon it throughout the Scriptures, but the first mention is the foundation. It must never be discounted. When we get away from the first mention, we need to be revived to come back! Back to God’s plan. Back to the very first commandments He gave us. Back to His heart. Back to His first words. We need to forever be coming back to our first love, don’t we? With all the distractions in our lives it’s so easy to get away from our first love for Jesus. There’s nothing more important than being in love with Jesus. This is the hub from which everything else in our life flows out. When we are in love with Jesus, we will love our husband and children and everyone around us. Jesus spoke to the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:4, 5: 'Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.' But we must also turn back to the very first statutes God gave is in His Word. Not one word of God is insignificant. Every word is eternal and life-changing. We must come back to the very first words God spoke to the man and woman He created. Genesis 1:28: 'And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth. God has never rescinded these words. They stand forever. If we discard them because we think we know better, we disobey God’s powerful and living Word."
There are three important things to catch from that quote. Firstly, she is neglecting to mention that some commands God gave in the past did become void when Jesus fulfilled them. The author of Hebrews says that the ceremonial laws were "imposed until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10). Granted, Nancy is not trying to apply those laws to believers today (although that is the goal of Reconstructionism) but the truth of fulfilled law makes her argument invalid. We ought to be very careful before insisting on the observance of any Old Testament commands, especially ones given to specific people. If we have no system of application, what is to keep us from thinking we need to go out and build an ark or move to Canaan? This is basic contextual interpretation. Besides that, there is nothing a Christian needs to do that is not covered by observing this reiterated command in the New Testament: "For the commandments ... and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'... Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:8-10).
Secondly, did you notice how she twisted the meaning of the Scripture she referenced? Untwisted, it will always mean returning to Christ alone. But to Nancy, first love means Jesus and the law. The two are nowhere near equatable or even similar. This is an example of the very confused view of God that legalists often have.
Thirdly and finally, the law of first mention is a hermeneutical tool that has debatable reliability. The manner in which it was used in the above quote could only be described as haphazard with an equally hazardous result -- the technique could be used to emphasize the importance of absolutely anything in the Bible. It is far safer to let the entirety of Scripture speak for itself on what should be elevated above the rest. Answers in Genesis answers the question "is the 'law of first mention' a legitimate interpretive principle?" with "we have considered four major problems with this principle: it is demonstrably false in many cases; the meaning of a word is dependent upon context; it is too flexible to be a genuine principle; and a word might have multiple significant meanings".
So, Nancy Campbell believes in Covenant (Replacement) Theology turned Reconstructionism, right? Not quite. She also believes in some Dispensationalism, which is the antithesis to Covenant Theology. The best sense I can make of this is she is probably just as confused as I am about what she believes, and that a motivation to take the Bible as unchangeable and literal as possible is responsible for the discrepancy. If her beliefs were lateral, God's prophecies for Israel about reclaiming their land would now apply to the church, but in this article, she says the promise is for Israel alone. If she did believe across the board that God does deal with Israel separately, she would not be able to press the things she does onto her followers.
I should note that I have never met a Covenant Theologian who expected me to conform to the Old Testament. That is why I lean toward believing she is more Reconstructionist than anything else, but figuring it out completely is probably a lost cause. If anyone has any insight I'll love to hear it.
Regardless of the proper name for Above Rubies' beliefs, we can still imagine the repercussions of what we do know they believe. In a paper titled "The Dominion Mandate and the Christian Reconstruction Movement", we read: "A recent theological movement known as Christian Reconstruction has made a significant impact on American Christianity in the past several decades. It is based on a Reformed, Calvinistic view of theology with some significant, unique twists. The most prominent one is the conviction that the Scripture gives the church a mandate to take dominion over this world socially and culturally before the bodily return of Jesus Christ. This teaching is known as the 'dominion mandate.'... This issue is important because one's understanding of the Great Commission is at stake" (emphasis added).
Above Rubies absolutely teaches that there is another equally weighted commission that is the duty of all believers.
"I am continually astonished that most of Christendom today spurns the very first words that God spoke to man, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion . . . ' God's plans and purposes for mankind cannot be fully implemented without fulfilling the first commission. There are many who say that God is not interested so much in natural children any more, but only spiritual children. But, how can God have spiritual children if there are no natural children? God has a BIG heart. He loves fruitfulness. He loves increase. He wants to fill this earth so He can fill eternity."
"As parents, we have the great privilege and responsibility of fulfilling the two commissions. We have a two-fold anointing. We can bring forth natural children AND spiritual children. Plus, our natural children will grow up to bring forth spiritual children. We will be blessed more and more. ... The more children we have, the more possibility of impacting the world for God. The less of the godly seed in the land, the less revelation of God. The more godly seed in the land, the more revelation of God--more righteousness, more influence against evil, and more preaching of the gospel."
"There are some who argue that God is only interested in spiritual fruitfulness and multiplication, such as John 15:16 where Jesus spoke primarily regarding spiritual fruitfulness. However, to argue that we do not need to be naturally fruitful to produce a world full of spiritual fruit is plain, straight, ridiculous. God wants fathers and mothers who are spiritually fruitful to bring forth natural sons and daughters. He wants them to raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord to multiply spiritual fruitfulness that will influence the whole world—every nation, every city, every village, every home, and every individual. It is for this purpose God has called and mandated every husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply, both naturally and spiritually. The more children we permit God to give us, the greater potential we have as parents to influence the world for righteousness. We cannot increase righteousness if there is no one created to receive it. ... Those who call themselves Christians, and yet have no vision to increase and multiply sons and daughters, obviously have no vision to see the world influenced with the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 15:46 tells us: 'First which is natural . . . and afterward that which is spiritual.'"
I'll resist countering all of the "plain straight ridiculous" statements made there but I cannot let the misuse of Scripture go unmentioned. Proof texting is the modus operandi of the false teacher — it merely takes reading back a few verses prior and after to get the necessary context. The passage is explaining why the spiritual is more desirable. The author uses parallelism, employing words like "perishable", "dishonor", and "weakness" to represent "natural"; and "imperishable", "glory", and "power" for "spiritual" (1 Corinthians 15:42-47). Isn't it weird how what the Bible actually says is kind of opposite to Above Rubies' central doctrines? That is why you will never see them use Scripture with integrity when it comes to their distinctives — the Bible simply does not contain what they want it to.
"BORN TO BE FRUIT BEARERS: This is God's desire for us, naturally and spiritually. The Message Bible translation of John 15:16 says, 'You didn't choose me, remember; I chose you, and put you in the world to bear fruit, fruit that won't spoil. As FRUIT BEARERS, whatever you ask the Father in relation to me, he gives you.' We know that one of the greatest reasons for marriage is to show forth the picture of Christ and His church. It is also the desire of Christ that His body is fruitful. When we are fruitful in our marriage, we are revealing a true picture of Christ and the church to the world. WE WERE BORN TO REPRODUCE! All nature and all mankind were created for this purpose. This is God's plan for us in the natural and in the spiritual."
That's an intact quote. Notice how the verse is clearly referencing spiritual fruit, and how it somehow gets turned into proof that God wants us to physically (naturally) reproduce in marriage. Someone points out the heavy use of Old Testament descriptive verses and the lack of acknowledgement of the New Testament's emphasis on spiritual fruit and Nancy offers a rebuttal:
"...one writer commented that most of the Scriptures mentioned were from the Old Testament and that in the New Testament we are not obligated to bring forth natural children, but only spiritual children. Because we must be faithful to the truth, I will make comment. There are many doctrines and truths that were established in the Old Testament that are not repeated in the New Testament because they were already accepted as truth by those living in the New Testament. They did not have to be established or repeated again. One of these is having children. God's very first words to Adam and Eve after He created them and blessed them were: 'Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth' (Genesis 1:28). God didn't change His plan for mankind in the New Testament. ... Where is the Scripture that says that we should no longer bring forth children, but only spiritual children? Of course, it is nowhere to be found. We cannot make up our own doctrines. ... And yes, He wants us to be witnesses, proclaiming God's truth of salvation and leading as many people as we can to Jesus, but this is not instead of having children. We do this as we continue God's first commandment of having children. In fact, we accomplish it more by having children. ... At this moment, we are destitute of the godly seed, so much so that we don't even have enough godly people to vote in righteous politicians and a godly president. This would not be our experience in this country if Christians had not stopped having the children God wanted them to have. Instead of filling the land with godly children, we have purposely limited them. This is far from God plan [sic]."
Like with the law of first mention, it's not very wise to assume that omission of a teaching from the New Testament is a testimony to its importance! If "they did not have to be ... repeated again", why did Jesus spend so much time emphasizing and reemphasizing key doctrines? I have heard it said that God does not expect us to follow hidden laws and try to guess what he expects of us — he makes it clear — and I completely agree. In refusing to take Scripture as it was written, Above Rubies muddies the simple calling of believers:
"The good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ needs anointed arrows of diligence [Quiverfull children] to set these captives free."
Let's rewrite that sentence to give it good theology: "These captives need the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ to set them free." Quiverfull and plain Dominionists alike have something in common: they complicate the gospel and add extra steps to its receivability.
"The Bible does not advise us to seek to establish a physical Christian kingdom. God had such a plan for Israel when they took control of the Promised Land, but, in the New Testament era, He has never called His people to establish a political kingdom ruled by His laws, commands, and statutes. Jesus said plainly that His kingdom is not of this world and, unlike the followers of worldly political leaders, His followers do not use force to establish the kingdom (John 18:36). The mission of Christians is not to strive to take worldwide dominion and set up a Christian kingdom but to share the gospel of salvation with the whole world (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 1:8). When people are saved, the Holy Spirit will begin His work in them, changing their lives to conform to God’s Word (Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). When the gospel spreads, society is changed, one heart and one life at a time" (Got Questions: Should Christians try to force the kingdom on others?).
Other posts in this series:
Comments