By Art Jipson
Christian Reconstructionism is a theological and political movement within conservative Protestantism that argues society should be governed by biblical principles, including the application of biblical law to both personal and public life.
Taking shape in the late 1950s, Christian Reconstructionism developed into a more organized movement during the 1960s and 1970s.
It was born from the ideas of theologian R. J. Rushdoony, an influential Armenian-American Calvinist philosopher, theologian and author. In his 1973 book, “The Institutes of Biblical Law,” Rushdoony argued that Old Testament laws should still apply to modern society. He supported the death penalty not only for murder but also for offenses listed in the text such as adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, witchcraft and idolatry.
As a scholar of political and religious extremism, I am familiar with this movement. Its following has been typically very small – never more than a few thousand committed adherents at its peak. But since the 1980s, its ideas have spread far beyond its limited numbers through books, churches and broader conservative Christian networks.
The movement helped knit together a network of theologians, activists and political thinkers who shared a belief that Christians are called to “take dominion” over society and exercise authority over civil society, law and culture.
These ideas continue to resonate across many areas of American religious and political life.
Origins of Christian Reconstructionism
Rushdoony’s ideas were born from a radical interpretation of Reformed Christianity – a branch of Protestant Christianity that follows the teachings of John Calvin and other reformers. It emphasizes God’s authority, the Bible as the ultimate guide and salvation through God’s grace rather than human effort.
Rushdoony’s ideas led him to found The Chalcedon Foundation in 1965, a think tank and publishing house promoting Christian Reconstructionism. It served as the movement’s main hub, producing books, position papers, articles and educational materials on applying biblical law to modern society.
It helped train Greg Bahnsen, an Orthodox Presbyterian theologian, and Gary North, a Christian reconstructionist writer and historian, both of whom went on to take key leadership roles in the movement.
At the heart of reconstructionism lies the conviction that politics, economics, education and culture are all arenas where divine authority should reign. Secular democracy, they argued, was inherently unstable, a system built on human opinion rather than divine truth.
These ideas were, and remain, deeply controversial. Many theologians, including conservatives within the Reformed tradition, rejected Rushdoony’s argument that ancient Israel’s civil laws should apply in modern states.
Christian dominionism and different networks
Nonetheless, reconstructionist ideas grew as people who more broadly believed in dominionism began to align with it. Dominionism is a broader ideology advocating Christian influence over culture and politics without requiring literal enforcement of biblical law.
Dominionism did not begin as a single, unified movement. Rather, it emerged in overlapping strands during the same period that Christian Reconstructionism was developing.
Between the 1960s and 1980s, Christian Reconstructionism helped turn dominionist beliefs into an explicit political project by grounding them in theology and outlining how biblical law should govern society. Religion historian Michael J. McVicar explains that Rushdoony’s work advocated applied biblical law as both a theological and political alternative to secular governance. This helped in influencing the trajectory of the Christian right.
At the same time, parallel streams – especially within charismatic and Pentecostal circles – advanced similar claims about Christian authority over society using different theological language.
The broad network of those who believe in Christian dominionism includes several approaches: Rushdoony’s reconstructionism, which provides the theological foundation, and charismatic kingdom theology.
Charismatic kingdom theology, which emerged in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, teaches that believers – empowered by the Holy Spirit – should shape politics, culture and society before Christ’s return.
Unlike reconstructionism, it emphasizes prophecy and spiritual authority rather than formal biblical law; it seeks influence over institutions such as government, education and culture.
What unites them is the idea that Christian faith should be the basis of the nation’s moral and political order.
Taken together, I argue that these strands have reinforced one another, creating a larger movement of thinkers and activists than any single approach could achieve alone.
From reconstructionism to the New Apostolic Reformation
Christian reconstructionist and dominionist ideas gained wider popularity through C. Peter Wagner, a leading charismatic theologian who helped shape the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, by adapting elements of Christian Reconstructionism. NAR is a charismatic movement that builds on dominionist ideas by emphasizing the use of spiritual gifts and apostolic leadership to shape society.
Wagner emphasized spiritual warfare, prophecy and modern apostles taking control of seven key areas – family, church, government, education, media, business and the arts – to reshape society under biblical authority. This is known as the “Seven Mountains Mandate.”
Both revisionist and dominionist movements share the belief that Christians should lead cultural institutions.
Wagner’s dominion theology, however, adapts Christian Reconstructionism to a charismatic context, transforming the goal of a Christian society into a spiritually driven movement aimed at influencing culture and governments worldwide.
Doug Wilson and homeschooling
Another key bridge between reconstructionism and contemporary dominionist thought is Doug Wilson, a pastor and author in Moscow, Idaho.
Though Wilson distances himself from some of reconstructionism’s harsher edges, he draws heavily from Rushdoony’s intellectual framework. Wilson’s influence can be seen in publications such as “Reforming Marriage,” where he argues for applying biblical principles to law, education and family life.
Liesbeth Powers/Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY
He has promoted Christian schools, traditional family roles and living out a “Christian worldview” in everyday life, bringing reconstructionist ideas into new areas of society.
Through his writings, teaching and leadership within the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – the CREC – network, Wilson encourages a vision of society shaped by Christian values, connecting reconstructionist thought to contemporary cultural engagement.
Wilson’s publishing house, Canon Press, and his classical school movement have brought these ideas into thousands of Christian homes and classrooms across the U.S. His local congregation – the Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho – numbers around 1,300.
The Christian homeschooling movement offers parents a curriculum steeped in reformed theology and resistance to secular education.
Enduring influence
Some critics warn that the fusion of dominionist and reconstructionist theology with political action can weaken pluralism and democratic norms by pressuring laws and policies to reflect a single religious worldview. They argue that even moderated forms of these visions challenge the separation of church and state. They risk undermining the rights of religious minorities, nonreligious citizens and others who do not share the movement’s beliefs.
Supporters frame their mission as the renewal of a moral society, one in which divine authority provides the foundation for human flourishing.
Today, Christian Reconstructionism operates through small but influential networks of churches, Christian homeschool associations and media outlets. Its reach extends far beyond its original movement.
Even among those unfamiliar with Rushdoony, the political and theological patterns he helped shape remain visible in modern evangelical activism and the ongoing debates over religion’s place in American public life.
Art Jipson is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Dayton.
Jim says
Let me see… The very same people who demonize Shariah law think ‘Merica should be Christian and governed under the teachings of the Bible – of course, as they interpret it….
Oh, the irony….
Skibum says
Before retiring and moving here to FL, this same wrongheaded ideological idea was soundly rejected by WA state voters during the gubernatorial election some years ago. An unhinged woman who was running for governor promised voters that if elected, she would govern by the “edict of God”… whatever that meant! Would WA state citizens have been forevermore prohibited from enjoying a shrimp dinner? Would they no longer be able to wear clothes of mixed fabrics? Would the state prisons have to have on hand piles of stones to carry out stoning as death sentences… for violations of “religious” laws???
By the way, that woman lost in an overwhelming landslide. Thank God!
The more these wackos conflate an mix government/politics and their soup de jour versions of religion, the more they sound like the “American Taliban”.
Bo Peep says
Leftist gibberish. Try Islam out and see how things turn out. Talk about blind.
Skibum says
“There’s none so blind as those who will not see”
Deborah Coffey says
Dear Bo Peep, I’m inclined to believe that any religion would be better than the one of hatred you actively practice on here daily.
PaulT says
This ‘Conversation’ suggests that the objectives of Christian Reconstructionism are a lot like those of Fundamentalist Islam. The control of peoples minds, behavior and the society they live in to force everyone to comply with its restrictive norms.
It could be argued that enforcement of biblical, in this case pre-Christian Old Testament laws, has nothing to do with actual Christianity which should surely be focused on the teachings of Christ as documented by the New Testament.
Religious tolerance is critical in our multi religion, multi denomination world but please keep you religious views within your own religious groups.
To seek to force any kind of religious emphasis into the government and laws of this country is a blatant breach of the Constitution’s ban on ‘preference for any one religion’ as set out by the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
Laurel says
There are two reasons for governing through one religion:
1.) Control, and
2.) Control.