For decades scholars have paid little attention to a relatively small but influential movement in American protestantism—Christian Reconstruction. However, this is now changing. With excellent articles from Molly Worthen and a recent smart biography published by Michael McVicar, the story of Reconstruction is coming into clearer focus. Julie J. Ingersoll adds yet another important dimension to this burgeoning topic.
Reconstructionists have a few key emphases that distinguish their movement. They draw on traditional Calvinist ideas to accentuate the sovereignty of God, they believe that God intends the world to be government by unchanging biblical law, and they contend that individuals' worldviews are based on clear and explicit presuppositions. They are also postmillennialists, believing that God has established his kingdom on earth through the work of Jesus's death and resurrection and he is working through time to develop that kingdom in this world. Reconstructionists insist that God has given humans clear and explicit directions for organizing the family, church, government, and society.
Ingersoll mixes substantial research with some qualified ethnographic work to argue that the Reconstructionist “ideas became a driving force in American politics” (1). To make this argument, she explains some of the theology and ideas articulated by various Reconstructionist leaders and then she looks at how those ideas have seemingly played out in the real world. She tracks the appearance of Reconstructionist theology in education, battles over evolution, the work of various advocacy groups, conservative revisionist history, and right-wing politics. The creation science of Henry Morris, the historical work of David Barton, and the political candidacies of numerous Tea-Partiers all, according to the author, reflect Reconstructionist ideas.
Building God's Kingdom offers many colorful and instructive examples of Reconstructionism in action. Ingersoll shows how her subjects' ideas about schools and the state have impacted education in the U.S. The book is also peppered with wonderful examples of Reconstructionist politics. Equally enlightening is Ingersoll's discussion of Vision Forum's catalogs, where parents can buy various highly gendered costumes for their children. This example reveals the very serious ways in which at least this Reconstructionist-influenced group understands women's roles. It also demonstrates Reconstructionists' savvy use of popular culture and material objects to spread their message. The author's discussion of creationists' vague invocation of their scientific credentials is also fascinating. Ingersoll handles the important and difficult topic of the relationship between Reconstruction and violence as well, especially relative to the radical wing of the pro-life movement.
As compelling as parts of Ingersoll's arguments are, in some sections of the book her qualified, carefully-defined theses give way to overstatements. She gives far too much credit to Reconstructionists at times, significantly claiming substantially more than she can prove. This is clear from the introduction as well as throughout the book. “The arguments,” she writes, “made by conservative Christians about biblical government that focus on the character and structure of families, free-market economics, the legal status of religion, the critique of public education, care for the poor, the right to own guns, the funding of health care, and more have their roots in the work of R. J. Rushdoony” (3). To make this claim is to ignore the many other reasons that various evangelicals—well before Rushdoony—had for taking nearly identical positions on these topics. Rushdoony may have helped some Christians develop these ideas, but their roots run much deeper than Reconstruction. If a Christian leader, Tim LaHaye, for example, argues for reducing the size of the government, and a Reconstruction leader had earlier made that same argument, and they had met or even just exchanged books, then Ingersoll credits the Reconstructionist for inspiring the argument. Correlation becomes causation for the author, even though this kind of logic is something she criticizes in her subjects. She also credits religious right activists for inheriting “a postmillennialist ethos” (39) from Reconstructionists even though recent work has shown that premillennialism can produce an equally compelling political ethos and motivation for action. In terms of style, the book has a chaotic feel. Ingersoll bounces around a lot without much attention to particular historical contexts or how things change over time or how ideas evolve as the movement and its leaders change. The book also suffers from way too many block quotes, which appear on many pages, giving the narrative a choppy and halting feel. Despite these limitations, this is a thoughtful and important resource for scholars and students wishing to know more about an important movement in modern American religion and politics.
