February 17th, 2011
Author: Ian Hodge, Ph.D.
Part 1 - Fond Personal Memories
R.J. Rushdoony left this life in March 2001, just 10 years ago. At that time I wrote a tribute to a remarkable man, a friend, and a mentor. Here’s my updated version of that tribute.
It is with sadness, yet a spirit of hope, that the tribute was written to acknowledge a great man, Rousas John Rushdoony. His greatness, however, remains one of the best kept secrets of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, except for a relatively small devoted and loyal following that Dr. Rushdoony accumulated in his lifetime.
“Rush”, as he was fondly called by his friends, was a unique man. I did not have the opportunity to meet him more than a dozen times during the 21 years of our association. But I thoroughly enjoyed every moment with him.
We corresponded intermittently over a period of 20 years and eventually meeting him and knowing him more intimately, was a privilege, a very great honor, and a thoroughly pleasurable experience. To be in Rush’s company was one of the most enjoyable experiences you could have.
Rush’s books tell the story of a man who was determined to provide an understanding of Christianity in a unique but important manner. He was not the usual abstract theologian. Most seminary graduates will study the creeds and councils of the early church, yet Rush provided in one small book, The Foundations of Social Order, more understanding on these events than they would ever hear in all their years in seminary. Pick up his 2-volume Systematic Theology and it is not like the regular volumes of Systematics you can buy.
In making the faith practical, Rush also made it exciting. By showing what an idea meant in practice in the past, he showed how we might work out our faith in the present and prepare for the future.
A man who believed in his work, that his calling was to redirect the Christian to the whole counsel of God in the Old and New Testaments, it was a surprise to me when, in 1979, he scribbled a short note, as was his practice, on the back of one of the acknowledgment letters he sent to everyone that ordered books or supported his work. “Why don’t you carry our books?” the hand-written note inquired.
For the next seventeen years it was a privilege and a blessing to promote Rush’s books and other Chalcedon publications in Australia and maintain a constant supply of those to readers in that part of the world. In the mid 1980’s, Rush granted me permission to supply his tapes, thus making his work available more readily and a little more cheaply (thanks to declining exchange rates in the Australian dollar at the time).
In 1991 I made the first of several visits to Chalcedon and the home of Dr. and Mrs. Rushdoony. What was significant was that in all his work he always had time for guests. He and his wife enjoyed company. And the many visitors that passed by were always made welcome. For those not brave enough to drive the Californian freeways, Rush’s hospitality always extended to driving to the airport to pick up his guests. And he was a couple of hours from the nearest airport.
In his home, the hospitality was always friendly, warm, and intensely theological. Rush liked nothing better than to discuss life from a theological perspective. He was interested in the Australian economy and how it matched (or didn’t match, as the case was more often) biblical ideals.
When the opportunity came for me to bring Rush and his colleague at that time, Otto Scott, to Australia for a conference in 1992, it was with humor that I would welcome them to the land where “socialism worked” (or so most Australians falsely believe). For ten days I was fortunate to breakfast with Rush and Otto in my own kitchen, and the discussion was always lively, humorous, but serious.
It was on that visit I learned a very practical lesson about book reading. The flight from San Francisco to Australia takes about 14 hours. The plane leaves in the evening, misses a day due to the International dateline, and arrives in Australia in the early hours of the morning after, thus leaving the wearied traveler with a dilemma: sleep during the day and be awake at night, or find something to do to stay awake for another 12 hours or so. That way you can fall into the local sleep patterns more readily.
Rush had a solution for this. “Take me to the second-hand book stores,” he said on arrival. So, on his first day in Australia on that occasion we managed to take in five bookstores. (Rush first visited Australia in the 1980s as part of a defense team for a Christian school under legal proceedings for maintaining its church status against teacher union demands to intrude on its dealings with staff.)
It was also on that occasion that I learned something else about Rush and his commitment to scholarship. As he was accumulating books to be shipped back to America, I tried a little humor on him. “Rush,” I said, “my wife says a man shouldn’t buy more books until he’s read all the ones he has already.” I had been in his home and seen the estimated 30,000+ books in his library. Reading them would have been a monumental task.
In reply, Rush responded without a smile and in that slow Californian accent that Australians find so fascinating, “I may not have read all my books from cover to cover,” he said, “but I know what is in every one them.” To view his library and see his notes in the books was evidence that this was no idle boast. But the point had been made, and my attempt at humor on this occasion backfired.
But Rush had a great sense of humor. He enjoyed a good story, and could tell a joke as well as listen to them. He read to his wife Dorothy (she was almost blind), both with tears in their eyes from laughter, a story by an Australian writer that I had sent him as a way of saying “thank you” for his visit. The Loaded Dog, by Henry Lawson, is the delightful story of a mongrel dog that liked to retrieve whatever was thrown. And when some miners threw dynamite sticks into a lake to “catch” fish, the dog could not help himself but retrieve the sticks, with burning fuses attached. Mayhem resulted, and Lawson’s storytelling vigorously captured the events that led to the blowing-up of the local hotel by the “loaded dog.” Rush delighted in funny stories.
He was, after all, a very down-to-earth person. Despite his great learning, his ability to think in a structured and logical way, he always had time for ordinary people. He had, moreover, the ability to communicate with them in simple language. I think this is one reason so many so-called academics rejected his work. He wrote with clarity. It was not possible to misunderstand the point he was making. His style of communication is indicated by his followers. The academics of this world, with few exceptions, were not his readership. Ordinary men and women, those seeking real answers that made sense, were the people who bought and read his books. These are the people who were the backbone of support for Rush over the years and continue to support the Chalcedon Foundation.
Rush was a man who knew the sadness of being maligned by his enemies and misunderstood by those he sought to win to a better understanding of the Scriptures. Yet in this he never sought vindication for himself, for he knew that he was no more than the messenger of the great King. To a friend who once inquired if he expected God to vindicate him, Rush replied: “God does not need to vindicate R.J. Rushdoony. He will, however, vindicate Himself.”
Rush is missed by all those who had the privilege of knowing him. He was like a father to many of us, offering words of wisdom and counsel, always encouraging. We loved him, and continue to miss him, as one of our own. And we look forward eagerly to that day in the future when we will all be united under King Jesus and pain and death and suffering are no more.
Of all the things I learned from Rush that stands out most, you cannot find in his books. His advice on one occasion is that “we are not every man’s censor.” This is a lesson I should have learned much earlier, and it’s still a reminder that a most ardent defender of the faith could allow people to make wrong statements, yet he did not feel the need to correct their foolishness. This is a lesson in graciousness that many of his followers, including this writer, could do well to remember.
Rush knew his share of difficulties in this life but they did not stop him from exercising his calling. He had a sense of destiny that is rare, and his family’s historical contribution to the faith played an important part in developing his own contribution to the ongoing reform of the world.
Rush’s contribution to a new Reformation, one that has turned us back to the whole Scripture so that we no longer neglect the Torah – the law of YHWH – will remain indelibly imprinted in the history of Christianity.
And I know that Rush’s desire for each one of us was this: “be faithful to the end in all things.”
Part 2 - RJR's Contribution to Christian Thought
In the first part of this Tribute to R.J. Rushdoony I recalled the personal side of my relationship with him and some of the fond memories I have as a result of a 21-year association.
In this portion of the Tribute, I’m going to highlight what I think is Rush’s real contribution to Christian thought.
The name R.J. Rushdoony is tied up with two concepts: theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. But for Rushdoony, these two concepts are tied together in a unique manner.
For those of us raised outside of Reformed circles, his call to return to God’s law was somewhat radical. Yet for those raised on Reformed catechisms, Rushdoony’s view was not that unusual in some respects. Both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Larger Catechism expound the Ten Commandments using what Rushdoony called “case law”. That is, the Ten Commandments were given substance through the many laws given in the Pentateuch (or Torah).
Many of his followers, then and now, came from outside the Reformed tradition. What is curious, however, is the hostility Rushdoony received from the Reformed community, and I can understand why.
Rushdoony was not content with the traditional Reformed view of the law. The tri-fold division into moral, judicial and ceremonial had a pre-Reformation history, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the right view.
In his Institutes of Biblical Law, Volume 1, he made these comments about the Westminster Confession of Faith:
In Chapter XIX, “Of the Law of God,” one of the errors of the Confession appears, in that Adam is placed under “a covenant of works,” the law. However, in paragraph II, it is stated that “This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables.” The law is thus seen as the rule of righteousness, i.e. the way of sanctification. However, in paragraph IV, without any confirmation from Scripture, it is held that the “judicial laws” of the Bible “expired” with the Old Testament. We have previously seen how impossible it is to separate any law of Scripture as the Westminster divines suggested. In what respect is “Thou shalt not steal” valid as moral law, and not valid as civil or judicial law? If we insist on this distinction, we are saying that the state is free to steal, and is beyond law, whereas the individual is under the law. At this point, the Confession is guilty of nonsense (p. 551).
Here Rushdoony was as politely provocative as he could ever be. The Westminster Confession is not just wrong – it’s nonsense. With a broad, sweeping brush, Rushdoony calls into question centuries of Christian teaching. And he does so with the Word of God firmly in his hand. It’s not that he was against the Confession in its totality. But at this point on the law, the Confession and Rushdoony’s understanding of the Bible were in conflict.
But he is not content to stop here. Rush knew where he was going, and if you read enough of his material, his belief system becomes apparent.
When it comes to consistency, Rush, like so many of us, is not always clear. He argues, for example, that the dietary laws are no longer obligatory, according to Acts 10. He argued, on the other hand, that the dietary laws were good to follow. Does this mean he thought it was a matter of individual choice whether or not we follow the food laws?
There was one time when those laws were obligatory to Rushdoony, and that’s when he took you to a restaurant to eat. His guests would be politely requested not to order pork or shrimp. This restaurant episode indicates that Rush’s own view was more than mere choice. He felt strongly enough about it that he expected his guests to also abide by those laws.
Out of all the laws, it is the so-called “ceremonial” laws that test Rushdoony’s consistency to Scripture, and his followers’ willingness to go with him on this point. If anything scares people away from accepting Rushdoony it is the belief that returning to the sacrificial laws – even in a modified form – would be wrong.
In Chapter XV of his Institutes, Vol. 1, he relies on Conybeare’s history that indicates the Armenian church practiced a modified version of the sacrificial laws into the twentieth century. He lists the prayer that goes with those sacrifices. In Volume 3 of his Institutes of Biblical Law, Rush had this to say about the ceremonial concept of law. It was a direct attack on the Westminster Confession’s tri-fold division of the law:
One of the problems with any understanding of these laws governing sacrifices for sin is that they are usually described as ceremonial laws. Although so termed by excellent scholars, it is, I believe a serious distortion of Scripture. . . . The word ceremony trivializes atonement, and all sacrifices generally (p. 5).
A serious distortion? Trivializing the atonement? They’re damning comments. And it is no wonder that Rush received the ire of so many people in the Reformed household of faith.
Since Scripture itself does not allow law as a means of salvation, what then was the purpose of the law? Was it to teach people that each sin required blood atonement? Was it symbolical of that greater sacrifice that would one day be a part of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31?
Go to the book of Hebrews, the often used reference point for those who put aside the sacrificial law, and you will find the writer refers to the New Covenant of Jeremiah twice. Not once, but twice. This point is so important to the writer of Hebrews that he repeats himself, just in case his readers miss it. (See chapters 8 and 10 of the letter to the Hebrews).
Jeremiah’s (chapter 31) passage explains very clearly what the new covenant would be: the law would be written on the hearts of God’s people. That is the new covenant, and the writer of the book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to explain how this came about. It doesn’t say they will be taken away, that we will have a reduced list of activities. It says we will now delight to keep the whole of God’s law (see Psalm 1).
To use the New Testament in such a way that it supersedes or replaces the Old Testament law is not warranted. Rush was aware of this, and proceeded down the path of a full acceptance of the Torah, sacrificial laws along with everything else. He hesitated, however, to call for a return identical to Old Testament practice, which is why he speaks favorably of the Armenian practice.
But Rushdoony had turned his back on the traditional hermeneutic: that the Old Testament remains intact unless the New Testament changes it. Or at least he turned his back on this view far enough for him to begin to question the traditional view about the sacrificial laws. And so we see him attempting to work out the logic of his own systematic theology at this point.
The sacrificial system is indeed ended since out Lord’s vicarious sacrifice, but there is much to these laws of permanent validity. By God’s providential government, these laws of sacrifice are a part of His infallible law-word. If their was relevance was only until Christ’s death, then why are they a part of His word? Or, why not skip over them in reading the Bible? (Institutes, Vol. 3, p. 5ff).
It is evident from this that Rushdoony left his followers an assignment. That assignment is to figure out how the sacrificial laws are to be applied today, not just figuratively, but literally.
To do that, however, requires a recognition of Rushdoony’s key contribution to contemporary Christian thought. You can see the course that Rushdoony has set himself. He has turned his back on the traditional teaching about the Torah – the law of God – and is making statements that are foreign to our ears.
Rushdoony never wrote a book on hermeneutics – how to interpret the Bible. But he adopted Van Til’s philosophy and apologetic and applied it with vigor. What he did do was to point us to the solution to an interpretive framework of the New Testament. This is the key principle of Rushdoony’s work.
The framework is provided by the Old Testament, in particular the Torah, the first five books of the Tanakh, the Old Testament. Such an approach ties us to the Old Testament as the necessary framework for reading the New Testament, not the other way around.
Traditional Christian teaching has loosed itself from the Old Testament and now reads the New Testament ungoverned by anything other than a subjective mysticism of the “Holy Spirit”. Then, with New Testament “interpretation” in hand, it goes back to the Old Testament and declares whole passages null and void, except as a mental exercise.
The simple truth is that the New Testament documents fit quite harmoniously with the Old Testament when the Old Testament is used as the interpretive grid through which all ideas flow.
Francis Schaeffer spoke about “contentless” Christianity, a Christianity with little or no meaning. Rushdoony shut the door on the “contentless” Ten Commandments and opened up the whole Scripture from which we must take our instructions, not just for salvation, but for daily living also. The Ten Commandments are thus full of God’s explanation on how to keep them, which includes the sacrificial laws that continually point to Christ. Rushdoony recognized that the “pointing to” was not limited to the Old Testament era.
If we are going to be true disciples of Rushdoony and really want to be involved in “Reconstruction”, then the whole of Scripture needs to become the key message, not just by spoken word, but by faithful life and obedience to every word that flows from the mouth of God.
This is R.J. Rushdoony’s legacy. It remains to be seen if his followers will pick up the challenge for a comprehensive return to the whole of Scripture with no contradictions.