Rand Paul and Rousas John Rushdoony

I’ve covered Rushdoony before, knowing that his Dominionist garbage would come up again…

The article below does a fair job at connecting Rand Paul back to the father of Dominionism, although the connections should be closer for my tastes. While many Americans only seem to vote their emotions at the moment – Left and wrong – the voter should take his or her time to educate themselves on the candidate and the candidate’s issues. If Paul is influenced heavily by Rushdoony, while he may be marginalized if elected – I get the feeling that the Kentucky GOP doesn’t care for him, and he is would be just as unwieldy in the Senate – could this empower other dominionists to run?

I know that those like Patricia King and Rick Joyner tend to favor Sarah Palin, but I wonder if they’ve said anything about old Rand Paul?

Check out the article:

Rand Paul and the Influence of Christian Reconstructionism | Religion Dispatches.

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

10 thoughts on “Rand Paul and Rousas John Rushdoony”

  1. Piffle, Joel.

    Gary North is from a Reconstructionist background, no doubt. But go read LewRockwell.com and you'll see dozens of posts by North in favor not of theocracy in any conceivable sense, but for actual anarchy. He's an economist who believes in a free market; pardon me for agreeing with his Austrian school of economics (crap — am I a dominionist, too?).

    I'm sorry, but occasionally working with the Constitution Party because of points of overlapping interest (the Constitution in particular) no more makes you a Christian Reconstructionist than supporting the Democratic Party makes you an advocate of abortion on demand or unfettered drug use. Playing “six degrees of separation” can be taken too far – Obama is closely (but bogusly) linked with Louis Farrakhan just as easily – and this writer has done it. Not a single quote from Paul advocating a single plank unique to Rushdoonyism in the whole article — just scare tactics and attempted guilt by tenuous association.

  2. Steve, point well taken on comparisons, which is why I used the word 'if' a lot. But, how can you be close to someone like Rushdooney and be influenced by them? He was an 'either or' kinda guy, from what I understand.

  3. I have no idea how Rushdoony may or may not have influenced North. For all I know, North may have significantly departed from Rushdoony's plans for implementation of the Kingdom of God via political means (which I still contend is of a piece with advocating state-enforced social welfare…), or maybe he's just living in denial. But it is this unknown that makes the link between Rushdoony and Rand Paul seem waaay too contrived.

  4. What false witness? Rushdooney and others like him, such as the racist R.L. Dabney, see no real difference in politics and religion. The two are so intertwined that it is fair to say that Rushdooney does believe that political means will bring about the Kingdom of God.

  5. Whoa, sorry — I didn't mean to slam him, really. In fact, I was under the impression that CR people such as North, DeMar et al. tended toward libertarian, small government stuff. But my experience has been that they're big on the “U.S. was/is/should be a Christian nation” kick, which is baffling if not intended to advocate some Christian influence on politics, which in turn seems only useful if intended to influence the public via political means.

    At any rate, I was playing off the article's and Joel's characterization of him, when I should have been more careful.

  6. Steve – you libertarians <—notice the little 'l') need to solidify here. I've had another Libertarian tell me that Dominionism is anti-libertarian and more along the lines of socialism.

    Rushdooney was big on the Christian nation by any means bent. Click through the link on Rushdooney.

  7. As I said, Joel, I'm no expert on CR, or even quite sure that Dominionism and CR are even the same thing. (Any help, John?)

    You socialists need to solidify here — seems you would like Dominianism. ;-)

  8. burn…burn.. boo hisss….

    CR is the foundation for dominionism, in my opinion.

    And socialism is the cure for all the world's ills, more especially libertarianism :)

  9. Whoa, sorry — I didn't mean to slam him, really. In fact, I was under the
    impression that CR people such as North, DeMar et al. tended toward
    libertarian, small government stuff. But my experience has been that they're
    big on the “U.S. was/is/should be a Christian nation” kick, which is
    baffling if not intended to advocate some Christian influence on politics,
    which in turn seems only useful if intended to influence the public via
    political means.

    At any rate, I was playing off the article's and Joel's characterization of
    him, when I should have been more careful.

Leave a Reply, Please!