Re: Fw: [asa] Rushdoony

On 10/13/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> sorry correct url now
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Roberts
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:55 PM
> Subject: [asa] Rushdoony
>
> This
> http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RousasRushdoony
> has recently appeared on a British anti-creationist website is it fair.
>
> Any comments to me and to roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk please.
>
> Michael

Before I start let me reveal where I am coming from so that my further
comments can be properly evaluated. I have a pretty fundamental
disagreement with R. Rushdoony. He believed that the OT can be as his
protege Greg Bahnsen put it exhaustively applied. This drove his
detailed casuistry in his Institutes of Biblical Law. I line up more
with John Calvin and the Westminster Confession that the general
equity found in the OT are applied in principle with the details are
applied in wisdom. It should be obvious that I am no great fan of
Rushdoony's central thesis.

That being said, the web page quoted is an utter hack job. I
personally met Rushdoony in the '80s. He was one the most humble and
gentle men I have ever met. He was being ruthlessly pummeled with
hostile questions and yet he responded with utter grace, gently
turning away wrath. It is truly ironic that one the major sources of
the web page is the truly mean-spirited Lenny Flack.

Rushdoony can truly be called a Christian Libertarian [Note to Janice:
he was also one of the first Christian environmentalists, cf.
Institutes of Biblical Law pp. 141ff, 164ff]. This should come as a
huge surprise to his detractors that he was a liberatarian. By
focusing only on the state they miss much of what Rushdoony does by
applying Biblical law to other institutions. Rushdoony argues that if
Biblical law is applied in the church, the family, and the individual,
then the size of the civil government becomes small.

It is not that Rushdoony had flaws. John Frame rightly notes his
weakness with respect to love:

"If love is the fulfilling of the law, one would expect that a top
priority item in any account of biblical law would be a full
discussion of the biblical view of love. Amazingly, however, Rushdoony
takes the same approach with regard to love as that we have seen him
take toward other basic concepts. His discussion of love is almost
exclusively negative. He issues a polemic against substituting love
for law, an admonition to keep love subordinate to law (pp. 173, 254,
284, 467, 303f, 336, 346, 432). Compare, however, page 360, where love
is almost given its due in the marital context. The reciprocity of the
law-love relation in Scripture is completely missing from this
account. Yes, we must not substitute love for law; but we had better
not substitute law for love either. Yes, love may be defined in terms
of law; but the requirement of the law is also summarized and defined
in the love-commandment. The language of subordination between law and
love, unless it specify mutual subordination, is in my view most
inadequate here. Love must
indeed conform to law; but obedience to law must arise from and
manifest love. Without love, the first fruit of the Spirit, there can
be no good works or sanctification."
-- John Frame, Westminster Theological Journal 38:2, pp. 212-213
[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1976Rushdoony.htm]

One thing that is misconstrued if you only interact with Rushdoony in
writing is the absolutizing of his opponents. He did not do that when
you dealt with him in person. Some people are great by the answers
they give and others are by the questions they asked. Rushdoony is in
the latter category. He alone asked how do we apply the Bible to our
entire lives and not just on Sunday morning. You may disagree with his
answers but the question is profound. By being the first to ask this
question he awoke Evangelicals to their pietistic retreat.Turning him
into a bogeyman like this article does does his memory a great
disservice.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 13 11:33:10 2006