I'm reading a book about
Reconstructivists, a particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity that is
better known for their effects than for their name. The book, Building God's Kingdom, looks closely at the manifestations of
Reconstructivism within the purview of education. It's the backbone of the
homeschooling movement, as well as school choice and other cultural and
political reverberations of similar ilk.
Julie Ingersoll explores this mostly
through a close reading and careful history of a fellow named Rousas John
Rushdoony and the manifold ways in which his vision of education in America
ought to be constrained by biblical teachings and interpretations. He and his
followers (even those who disagree with some of his points and modify them to
fit their own means--as followers often do) have cast the world in a binary:
Theism and humanism.
Now, I'm a sectarian humanist, which
may sound like a contradiction in terms, but that's because "secular
humanist" has been conflated into "humanist" in the popular
imagination. This essay isn't about sectarian humanism, but it's important to
note that self-identifying as a sectarian (Mormon) humanist means that I
disagree with this binary almost immediately. I don't believe that
appreciating, honoring, and valuing humanity is anti-God; indeed, I feel God
demonstrates His greatness through
the works of mankind. If I analyze the binary on which they define the world as
false, it's pretty clear at this juncture that I don't really subscribe to
their philosophy or theology. (I would recommend that you read up on their
ideas yourself and make your own decision.)
So, in the spirit of staking a claim against a philosophical opponent I didn't know existed, let me explore these ideas for a bit. There are two points that I thought
were interesting from my reading of the first third of the book (all I've read
so far): One, the implications of false theocracy; and two, potential hypocrisy
over means and ends.
Implications of False Theocracy
As a millenarian Mormon, I believe
that Jesus Christ will one day rule this planet as a benevolent, divine
Monarch. His kingdom will subsume all other governments as He resurrects the
106 billion humans who have lived on the Earth. That's part of my worldview:
The eventual reign of God on Earth.
As an inheritor of a
sometimes-justified persecuted-complex religion, I am all too aware of what
happens when people pretending to be godly are given power. I'm not making the
argument that Reconstructionism is false
as a theology--that's a slightly different claim that falls into a different
essay--but as a potential (and, in their words, rather overt) theocracy it is
false. My reasoning for this is that any current religion--mine own
included--is a poor vessel for a government. Inasmuch as we have an imperfect
world filled with imperfect humans doing imperfect things, a theocracy is
always a bad idea.
There are salvific implications that
extend beyond the mortal realm that are a concern. Any theocracy--any
government--is tasked with protecting the people beneath it. That,
historically, at least, leads to violence and war. Particularly that second
piece is so theologically problematic that any theocracy that advocates it is
on dangerous grounds. And, yes, I think the Hebrews' attempted genocide in the
Old Testament is a theological problem.
So when it comes to
Reconstructionists and their interest in building a theocracy via education, I
naturally view this as pernicious. It's not simply that they utilize the Bible
in ways that I, as a Mormon, would disagree with--though that's part of the
mistrust I have of theocracies. Seeing the wars and bloodshed and lost potential
of the species because of differences in religious interpretation (see: The
Thirty Years' War), I'm suspicious that yet another reading of the Bible would
be unique enough to guarantee the "correct" reading we need for an
accurate theology. And while my Mormonism teaches me that we have the restored
Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's quite clear through Mormon history that we have a
lot to learn--about people of color and the correct form of marriage to name
the most obvious examples--before we could claim that we have it one hundred
percent correct.
Is "secular humanism" and
civil governments the solution? Well, at the very least, a secular government
isn't making any eschatological claims that may end up being incorrect. If a
theocracy swears up and down that a particular mode of baptism is necessary for
the salvation of souls, enforcing that mode of baptism onto the people, and
that mode of baptism isn't correct, then not only have the people been misled
by the theocracy (an error secular governments can likewise do), but the souls
of the people so misled are also imperiled.
Additionally, the point of God
creating humans in this way is to let us figure things out. That, at least, has
been what I've learned as a Mormon. We're supposed to learn how to be better
people, using the Truth that God has revealed as a helpmeet, so that we're
prepared to meet God again. A theocracy disallows the choices that are, from a
Mormonic point of view, so fundamental in the forging of a soul. Indeed, if you
explore Mormon doctrine, you'll see that there's a concept of "Satan's
plan" for the salvation of souls, one in which the salvific experience was
done at the expense of free will. The emulation of that plan on earth is a
theocracy, no matter how well intentioned. Yes, there are flaws and problems in
world governments, but they allow the maximum amount of agency, particularly in
pluralistic societies like America enjoys.
In sum, the explicit goal of
Reconstructionists is to build America into an overtly Christian theocracy. On
that level alone, I oppose them.
Hypocrisy of Means and Ends
In tandem with my understanding of
the desire for a theocracy is the hypocrisy of those perpetrating this
reconstruction of American education. Their basic argument is that governmental
schools are schools of humanism. "Public education is inevitably
indoctrination into a humanistic worldview" (Ingersoll loc. 1647). That is
a clear and present danger to a Reconstructionist, but I feel as though there
isn't a deep enough look at the actual fear.
Because the binary is between theism
and humanism, then the concern is focused on what the kids are learning. But
the problem isn't "humanistic worldview", the problem is
"indoctrination". The whole issue with indoctrination is that it
overrides a person's innate (or, if you're feeling religious, God-given)
ability to decipher, learn, and decide on one's own. The Reconstructionists
argue that kids have to be trained up "properly" and with a "biblical
understanding of the world", yet to inculcate that into a
mind--particularly if the mind is not given options from which to decide--is
the same sin which they refuse to name: Indoctrination.
The more a person learns, the
clearer it is to see areas of indoctrination in one's own life. The point of
education, learning, and growing is to become aware of these discrepancies and
embrace understood truths with a clearer mind than blind acceptance. It isn't
about rejecting what one once learned; it's about learning to appreciate and
love what one has learned of one's own volition. The forced-love of God saves
no one.
The thing that really gets me about
this hypocrisy ("indoctrination is bad unless we're doing it") is
that--begging your pardon for the stereotype--many right-leaning New Christian
Right people are vociferously and even distressingly ignorant about decrying
"creeping Sharia" and bad-mouthing traditional Islamic manners of
living in the Middle East.
Now, I'm not saying that because
Saudi Arabia is, essentially, a type of Islamic theocracy it's fine that they
educate their kids with a "Quranic-based understanding of the world".
It's not, for all the same reasons as I mentioned above. I'm not singling out
Christian theocracies as problematic, in other words. What I am saying is that
the so-called justification for Islamophobia is often one of "they want to
convert the world to Islam and will do it through brainwashing and
violence!" Yet those who cry that so often are keen to "convert the
world to Jesus and will do it through indoctrination and political
clout"--the result of which is a very real violence (just look at the
Hobby Lobby debacle with health care).
Conclusion
I daresay that a lot of the people
who read my blog identify and maybe even support the Reconstructionists' point
of view and maybe even laud their end goals. In other words, I imagine some of
you disagree with my posits. As a sectarian humanist that believes in the
founding principles of America, I think you have the right to do that. And I
think that underscores why I oppose Reconstructionism: My belief in the
inherent worth of humans (humanism) can only stand so long as Reconstructionism
never gains its end goal.