R.J. Rushdoony And Theocracy
A Review of This Independent Republic

This Independent Republic, his critique of the U.S. Constitution, makes this quite clear. The book was published by Thoburn Press in 1978.

In the Introduction Rushdoony excuses “the absence of reference to Christianity in the Constitution” on two grounds. First, he states “the Constitution would never have been ratified had such reference been made.” Second, he argues that the Constitution forbade any jurisdiction to the Federal Union in this area” [religion] because it was reserved to the states.

As to the first excuse, it is special pleading and conjecture. In any event Rushdoony is placing expediency above principle. Better the Constitution not have passed than to reject God in the document that lies at the very heart of our national life.

As to the second excuse, it is frivolous on the face of it. I’ll repeat an illustration we have used elsewhere. How would God have responded to Moses if he had returned from the mountain and declared that he was going to remain neutral at the “Sinai level” because religion was a topic reserved for the tribes.

Moses further explains that he does not want to single out any one of the tribes for special preference. Moreover, if the Ten Commandments are true they will prevail in the context of public debate. In this context the argument appears ridiculous, doesn’t it?

The only way that this analogy could break down is if we argue that the Ten Commandments do not apply to the Gentile nations. But Rushdoony denies this in all of his writings. He is the author of at least 30 published books and countless unpublished manuscripts on the application of biblical law to all facets of culture today.

For this, the church owes him a debt of gratitude. His “Institutes of Biblical Law” is a multi-volume commentary on the relationship of the Old Testament “case law” to the Ten Commandments. He has awakened thousands of Christians to our calamitous position before God when we reject His law in our personal and national life.

But is it a mere accident that the words theocracy or theocratic do not appear in the index of most of his major works on the civil magistrate. Books like “The Institutes of Biblical Law,” “Law and Society,” “Christianity and the State,” and “This Independent Republic.” The word theocracy means, “the rule of God’s law.”

Rushdoony describes the content of This Independent Republic as “studies” and they do not appear to be tightly integrated. But like building blocks stacked one on another each contributes to his theme.

In the first chapter on “Language and Liberty” he states, “Many a man uses language implying an alien faith without an awareness of the divergence of meaning” (p.2). This is doubly ironic coming in the first chapter. In the words of Nathan to David, “Thou art the man”, Rev. Rushdoony, with respect to the U.S. Constitution.

Applying the tendency in reverse, Rev. Rushdoony has chosen to pour a Christian content into the Constitution’s humanistic grant of power from “we the people.” But there is nothing of theocracy in it, either the word or the concept.

Rushdoony ignores the AntiFederalist objections, in particular those of Patrick Henry: Give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, “We the People,” instead of “We the States”? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the states... The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations: they are not the proper agents for this purpose: States and sovereign power are the only proper agents for this kind of government. This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the legislatures.”

Rushdoony contradicts Henry in Chapter 4 where he denies any sovereignty to government at all, let alone the states. He bases this on an argument from feudalism and on the colonies rejection of absolute sovereignty in Parliament. “In terms of this inheritance, sovereignty was an alien concept on the colonial and constitutional scene,” he asserts.

Moreover, in the opening paragraph of chapter 4 he makes the curious statement, “Although some references to popular sovereignty are to be found in the constitutional records, these statements have reference to political sovereignty. legal sovereignty was definitely denied, and the people themselves, although granted suffrage, were distrusted.”

In the first place, what’s the difference? In the second place, even a casual reading of the Preamble asserts the opposite.

The fist chapter also argues that most of the founders, even Jefferson, stood against the French Enlightenment. But the chapter dismisses the strong influence of the right-wing Enlightenment as inconsequential. Rushdoony even admits that Jonathan Edwards and John Witherspoon were so influenced, but slights the impact.

“An orthodox Calvinist, Witherspoon, without any sense of contradiction, also followed the philosophy of Thomas Reid (1710-1796), Scottish Realism…combining with this man-centered emphasis his own theocentric faith. Witherspoon’s students, profoundly influenced by him, reached positions of eminence in the Constitutional Convention...This confusion, however, was slight in contrast to other phenomena of the American scene.”

How he can stare this philosophy in the face, yet deny its presence at the heart of the U.S. Constitution is a mystery indeed. Only an unyielding patriotism can refuse to acknowledge the dominant influence of Thomas Reid’s common sense rationalism on Madison and the Constitution.

Much more could be said, but suffice it to say that the book continues in this vein. In his treatment of the U.S. Constitution, Rushdoony denies not only the word theocracy, but its content as well.

“James Madison was a covenant-breaking genius, and the heart and soul of his genius was his commitment to religious neutralism...He devised a Constitution that for two centuries has fooled even the most perceptive Christian social philosophers of each generation...”

We must acknowledge our debt of gratitude to R.J. Rushdoony for his faithful commentaries on the law of God. However, we must not let this blind us to his significant departure from the theocracy demanded by that law.

Sadly, while R.J. Rushdoony was a leading theonomist in theory, he denied that theory in practice at a very critical point: theocracy. Where the rubber meets the road, the founding document of his adopted country and its rejection of theocracy, Rushdoony equivocated.