Neo-Confederate Revival: How the Theology that Justified Slavery and Secession is Taking Over the American Church

Not one passage of the Bible establishes that there is such a thing as a “Christian Nation.” Likewise, not any scriptural support can be found for the idea that we should pray for a nation, or as we frequently are hear, “Pray for America.” Christianity, and thus the very concept of a “Christian Nation,” could not exist until after the death and resurrection of Christ. Applying political principles of Old Testament Israel to our current American experience require an adherence to either replacement theology or a theology that includes some form of collective, rather than individual, salvation; however, both theological concepts clearly violate scripture (Romans 11; Matthew 7).

The New Testament addresses Christian interaction with political government (including 1 Timothy 2, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2 and verses as Jude 1:8 and 2 Peter 2:10) in the context of such Roman Emperors as Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian — notably, per the records of Tacitus, Nero made nightly torching of Christians alive a form of public entertainment.

Within this context there is not one instruction for Christians to set up any sort of political state. (Lest we forget that Christ’s crucifixion was demanded once the mob in Jerusalem realized Jesus did not ride into town to kick out the Roman occupiers and set up a Jewish political state.) Instead, as Romans 13:1 states: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” 1 Timothy 2 does not say “Pray for Rome” or any other political state, instead 1 Timothy 2:1–2 states: “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made … for kings and all who are in high positions.”

Anytime common Christian rhetoric or widely held Christian beliefs have no scriptural support, as Christians, we should become very concerned. If the idea of a “Christian Nation” cannot be found anywhere in Scripture, then we must ask where such an idea came from.

As the evidence presented in this text will demonstrate, the concept of a “Christian Nation,” and related ideas such as “Pray for America,” were the invention of Southern Confederate clergy before, during, and after the American Civil War as a rhetorical and political tool to scripturally justify, and mobilize public support for, familial patriarchy, chattel slavery, and rebellious secession.

Overwhelming Evidence

In “Gospel of Disunion: Religion and Separatism in the Antebellum South,” Dr. Mitchell Snay (History Professor at Denison University) presents a comprehensive analysis of the rhetoric of Southern Christianity and Confederate Pro-Slavery nationalism. It is beyond the scope of this article to fully detail every exhibit meticulously presented by Snay (1997); however, the following selections are a sufficient summary:

“To Clergymen intent on establishing the importance of the fast day ritual, the history of biblical Israel demonstrated the value of prayer and fasting. … To Southern clergyman, God rewarded those nations that came to Him in prayer. … In accord with the interpretation of secession as an act consistent with American political values, Southern clergymen claimed that the South was the true heir to the American tradition of civil religion. They took these two central expressions of this tradition, the idea of America as God’s Redeemer Nation and the image of the United States as the New Israel, and reshaped them to apply exclusively to the South. … The South had become the Redeemer Nation and the New Israel. … With secession and the outbreak of the Civil War, Southern clergymen boldly proclaimed that the Confederacy had replaced the United States as God’s chosen nation. … According to Southern ministers, God’s chosen nation would advance republican institution as well as Christianity. … The South, instead of the United States, was now ordained to play the leading role in human history.” (Snay 1997, 191–4)

“Southern Clergymen fully embraced the concept of Redeemer Nation. … Rev. George Bell of Greensboro, Alabama, portrayed America as ‘a nation which God’s own hand hath planted, and on which he has, therefore, peculiar and special claims.’ In a Thanksgiving Day address delivered before citizens of Oxford, Mississippi, in 1856, university president Frederick A. P. Barnard proclaimed that, ‘in raising up this union, God has designed it an instrument for accomplishment of the who human race.’ … ‘God has a great design for this Continent,’ proclaimed the Rev. William Anderson Scott of New Orleans, ‘and for our generation. As the Jews of old — as the Apostles — as the Reformers — as our fathers of 1776 — so are we, as a race, and as a nation, a peculiar people and called to a high and glorious destiny.’ To Southern clergymen, the timing of America’s entrance into the world presaged its particular destiny.” (Snay 1997, 186–7)

As Snay (1997) describes, Southern clergy, across denominations, consistently argued that the Confederate South was God’s chosen “Christian Nation” and that such a claim was intimately tied to defending slavery and justifying secession. Three of the most influential Southern Evangelical clergy in the Confederate south were Benjamin Palmer, James Thornwell, and Robert Lewis Dabney. The following exhibits are a representative sample of text from sermons and writing by these three particular influential Southern Evangelical clergy.

James H. Thornwell, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, South Carolina from a sermon titled, “The Rights and the Duties of the Masters,” given on May 26, 1850 (Lowen & Sebesta 2010, 50–54):

“The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders — they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins, on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground — Christianity and Atheism the combatants. … The rule then simply requires, in the case of slavery, that we should treat our slaves as we should feel that we had a right to be treated if we were slaves ourselves.”

In this sermon, Thornwell frames Northern abolitionists as anti-Christian atheists that are locked in a spiritual battle to destroy the “true Christians” in the South. Thornwell then applies this apocalyptic dichotomy to support the institution of chattel slavery.

Benjamin Palmer, “Thanksgiving Sermon,” November 29, 1860 (Lowen & Sebesta 2010, 104–8):

“If then the South is such a people, what, at this juncture, is their providential trust? I answer, that it is to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of domestic slavery … we should at once lift ourselves, intelligently, to the highest moral ground and proclaim to all the world that we hold this trust from God … we will stand by our trust; and God be with the right! … Need I pause to show how this system is interwoven with our entire social fabric; that these slaves form parts of our households, even as our children; and that, too, through a relationship recognized and sanctioned in the Scriptures of God even as the others. … This duty is bound upon us again as the constituted guardians of the slaves themselves. Our lot is not more implicated in theirs, than their lot in ours; in our mutual relations we survive or perish together. The worst foes of the black race are those who have intermeddled on their behalf. We know better than other that every attribute of their character fits them for dependence and servitude. By nature the most affectionate and loyal of all races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no calamity can befall them greater than the loss of that protection they enjoy under this patriarchal system. … So literally true are the words of the text addressed by Obadiah to Edom (Obadiah 1:7), ‘All the men of our confederacy, the men that were at peace with us, have eaten our bread at the very time they have deceived and laid a wound under us.’ … Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and religion. The abolitionist spirit is undeniably atheistic. … This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims. … To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religion and of all truth. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the State, and the Church; which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High … Is it possible that we shall decline the onset?”

In this sermon, Palmer defends slavery as a scripturally mandated extension of patriarchal family systems. Similar to the text of Thornwell’s sermon, Palmer then claims the South has a divine duty to defend the institutions of patriarchy and slavery against the “atheist” abolitionists of the North, which Palmer accuses of seeking to destroy the Constitution, the family, the Church, and Christianity. Framing the North as “anti-Christian” was a critical foundation used to justify secession as a necessary means of defending the Confederate “Christian Nation.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, “Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights,” an article published in Presbyterian Quarterly July 1888 (Dabney Archive):

“Then came the anti-Mosaic geology and evolution — the one attacking the recent origin of man, the flood, etc., the other presuming to construct a creation without a creator. … So far as God gave to the chosen people a political form, the one which he preferred was a confederation of little republican bodies represented by their elderships. (Exodus 18:25–26; 3:16; Numbers 11:16–17; 32:20–27) … The history of the secession of the ten tribes under Jeroboam is often misunderstood through gross carelessness. No divine disapprobation is anywhere expressed against the ten tribes for exercising their right of withdrawal from the perverted federation. … Thus, while the Bible history does not prohibit stronger forms of government as sins per se, it indicates God’s preference for the representative republic as distinguished from the leveling democracy; and to this theory of human rights all its moral teachings correspond. On the one hand, it constitutes civil society of superiors, inferiors and equals (see Shorter Catechism, Question 64), making the household represented by the parent and master the integral unit of the social fabric, assigning to each order, higher or lower, its rule or subordination under the distributive equity of the law. … This theory thus established between all men a moral, but not a mechanical equality. Higher and lower hold a like the same relation to the supreme ruler and ordainer of the commonwealth, God; yet they hold different relations to each other in society, corresponding to their differing capacities and fitnesses, which equity itself demands. Job understood this maxim of Bible republicanism, as he shows (Job 31:13–15): “If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or of my maid-servant, when they contended with me; what, then, shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him?” So Paul, two thousand years later (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). … But the Bible scheme of social existence is full of this imputation. I shall not dwell upon the first grand case, the sin and fall of the race in Adam, although it is still determining, in a tremendous manner, the conditions of each individual’s entrance into social existence. I add other instances, some of which are equally extensive. ‘The woman was first in the transgression,’ for which God laid upon Eve two penalties (Genesis 3:16), subordination to her husband and the sorrows peculiar to mother hood. The New Testament declares (1 Timothy 2:11 to end) that it is right her daughters shall continue to endure these penalties to the end of the world. … The fathers of houses (Exodus 18:21; Joshua 22:14), in virtue of their patriarchal authority, held a senatorial dignity, and this evidently for life. … God predicted the rise of the institution of domestic bondage as the penalty and remedy for the bad morals of those subjected to it (Genesis 9:25); That God protects property in slaves, exactly as any other kind of property, in the sacred Decalogue itself (Exodus 20:17); That numerous slaves were bestowed on Abraham, the ‘friend of God,’ as marks of the favor of divine providence (Genesis 24:35); That the relation of master and bondman was sanctified by the administration of a divine sacrament, which the bondman received on the ground of the master’s faith (Genesis 17:27); That the angel of the covenant himself remanded a fugitive slave, Hagar, to her mistress, but afterwards assisted her in the same journey when legally manumitted (Genesis 21:17–21); That the civil laws of Moses expressly allowed Hebrew citizens to purchase pagans as life-long and hereditary slaves (Leviticus 25:44–46); That the law declares such slaves (that is, their involuntary labor) to be property. … The honest student, then, of the New Testament can make nothing less of its teachings on this point than that domestic slavery, as defined in God’s word and practiced in the manner enjoined in the Epistles, is still a lawful relation under the new dispensation as well as under the old.”

Debney’s argument in this text is particularly notable because he begins his argument by criticizing the teaching of Darwin’s evolution in American society and education. From that foundation, Dabney then attempts to harmonize scripture with Jeffersonian political theory in order to support an ideology of small government. This political ideology is then applied to arguing for patriarchal family structures and finally to argue that chattel slavery is even a “divine sacrament.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, “Women’s Rights Women,” The Southern Magazine, 1871 (Dabney Archive):

“These advocates of these ‘women’s rights’ may be expected to win the day. … That mighty tide of progress which has already swept away the Constitution, and slavery, and State’s rights, and the force of contracts public and private, with all such rubbish, will soon dissolve your grievance too. … To meet the argument of these aspiring Amazons fairly, one must teach with Moses, the Apostle Paul, John Hampden, Washington, George Mason, John C. Calhoun … No words are needed to show hence that should either the voice of God or of sound experience require woman to be placed for the good of the whole society in a subordinate sphere, there can be no natural injustice in doing so … What then, in the next place, will be the effect of this fundamental change when it shall be established? The obvious answer is, that it will destroy Christianity and civilization in America.”

This text demonstrates that Dabney applied the reasoning behind his support for slavery and secession in the post-civil war experience to attack the Women’s Rights movement. Recall, Women were not granted a constitutionally protected right to vote until 1920.

Robert Lewis Dabney, “Christians Pray for Your Nation,” editorial article in the Central Presbyterian of March 29th, 1856 (Dabney Archive):

“Christians of America, will ye suffer this? If such a crime against God and man be wrought in this land of thirty thousand evangelical ministers and four millions of Christians, how burning the sarcasm which it will contain against your Christianity! What, was there not enough of the oil of love in all these four millions of the servants of the God of love to soothe the surging billows of party strife? Was there not enough of the majesty of moral weight in these four millions of Christians to say to the angry waters, ‘Peace, be still?’ … For, brethren, you are able to control this nation, if you please, and will do your duty, Here are four millions of men and women, chiefly adults, among a people of twenty-six millions of men, women, children, and slaves; four millions who profess to be supremely ruled by principles of righteousness, peace and love, and to be united to each other in the brother-hood of a heavenly birth. If even the voters among these would go together to the polls to uphold the cause of peace, they would turn the scales of every election. … And, above all, the guilty churches of all our land should humble themselves before a holy God for our Christian backslidings and our national sins. ‘Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly; gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children and those that suck the breast; let the bridegroom go forth out of his chamber and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach.”

This text is perhaps the most provocative exhibits as the article by Dabney is even titled “Christians Pray for Your Nation.” Here is the origin of the contemporary rhetoric to “Pray for America.” This text from 1856 should sound particularly familiar to many contemporary American Christians as Dabney argues that if Christians would register and turn out to vote then Christians could win every election and surely save American society from certain doom. How many of us have heard this exact suggestion from our pulpits in the past few months and recent election cycles?

When Dabney refers to “Christian backslidings and our national sins,” contextually, he is suggesting that Northern churches and the Union (the North) must repent for joining with atheists to attack the “Christian South” and the institution of slavery. Dabney’s prescription to stop the atheists and backslidden in order to save the western Christendom and chattel slavery is to call for a Joel 2 “solemn assembly.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, “The Christian’s Best Motive for Patriotism,” sermon preached at College Church, Hampden-Sidney, VA November 1, 1860 (Dabney Archive):

“In the sight of heaven’s righteous Judge, I believe that if the Christianity of America now betrays the interests of men and God to the criminal hands which threaten them, its guilt will be second only to that of the apostate church which betrayed the Saviour of the world; and its judgment will be rendered in calamities second only to those which avenged the divine blood invoked by Jerusalem on herself and her children. … And first, Christians should every where begin to pray for their country. ‘Because of the house of the Lord our God, let us seek its good.’ The guilty churches of all our land should humble themselves before a holy God for their Christian backslidings and our national sins. ‘Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly; gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts; let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar; and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach.’ … Here are four millions of men and women, chiefly adults, among a people of twenty-six millions of men, women, children, and slaves — four millions who profess to be supremely ruled by principles of righteousness, peace, and love, and to be united to each other in the brother-hood of a heavenly birth. If even the voters among these would go together to the polls to uphold the cause of peace they would turn the scale of every election. … Here, then, is a prominent duty, if we would save our country that we shall carry our citizenship in the kingdom of heaven everywhere, and make it dominate over every public act. … The Christians of this country must sternly claim that wicked or reckless men shall no longer hold the helm of state; that political orthodoxy shall no longer atone for that worst offence against citizenship, a wicked life. And along with rulers would include the directors of the public press as being of the general class of leaders of the people.”

In this message, Dabney again accuses Northern churches and the entire nation for turning its back on God and prescribes a Joel 2 “Solemn Assembly” to remedy the situation. It is also critical to note that here Dabney also introduces the idea of a Southern Christian mandate to take dominion over “every public act,” including both government and the press. Does this sound familiar?

Robert Lewis Dabney, “The True Purpose of the Civil War,” Victoria, TX on December 1896 (Dabney Archive):

“But this short war will suffice for us, to centralize Federal power, overthrow the Constitution, fix our high tariffs and plutocratic fiscal system upon the country and secure for ourselves an indefinite tenure of power and riches. … These new advisers were aware that a Federal executive had no more constitutional or legal right of his own motion to attack a seceded State … Therefore the conspirators saw that a war must be precipitated without the semblance of law, and against law and the Constitution.”

In this final selection, Dabney accuses the Lincoln administration of being a part of a “big government” conspiracy to destroy the Constitution and impose a socialist plutocracy. Does such a conspiracy theory sound familiar? Consider recent rhetoric about the Obama administration and even the “oligarchic” decisions of five unelected Supreme Court judges.

The Confederate states made a unique and historically unprecedented claim that they were a “Christian Nation” on the basis of four connected arguments: (1) Southern Evangelical clergy justified slavery as a Biblical sacrament, an extension of Biblical patriarchy, and an essential element of natural law; (2) Southern Evangelical clergy argued that Northern abolitionists were atheists backsliders and thus the South could lay claim to being a “Christian Nation”; (3) Southern Evangelical clergy argued that the Confederacy was the “New Testament Israel” that was exceptional to human history and had been divinely established, “for such a time as this,” as part of God’s eschatological purposes; (4) Southern Evangelical clergy thus argued that state’s rights, secession, and rebellion against the Union were scripturally sanctioned and required.

Critics may charge that such socio-political rhetoric also appear in the pre-Civil War North. Certainly many of the ideas of replacement theology were common to the Puritan experience in Massachusetts Colony. However, as Snay (1997, 190–2) states:

“The appeal to Old Testament history and the analogy between biblical Israel and the United States was far more prevalent in the writings of the Southern clergy during the secession crisis. Drawing freely and widely on the narrative of Old Testament history. Southern ministers used the lessons of biblical history primarily to establish and defend the legitimacy of secession. … The history of the Jews showed that Israel and the South shared similar experiences of secession. Biblical history thus offered a precedent and powerful rationale for separating for the Union.”

Snay (1997, 195) further demonstrates:

“Although a precise measurement is elusive, it seems clear that Southern clergymen chose to identify more closely with the New Israel motif than did Northern ministers. There was only one sermon in my sample of Northern fast day sermons that drew an explicit connection between the North and God’s New Israel.”

Outside of confined colonial experiences, socio-political rhetoric of the North was merely a reaction to the nationalistic rhetoric of Southern Evangelical clergy. Put another way, once Southern Evangelical clergy began this war of words, Northern clergy were forced to respond (Snay 1997, 187–8). As Hague and Sebesta (2008, 53) describe, “During and after the Civil War, several prominent Southern clergymen defined the conflict and political debate with abolitionists as theological struggles between Christian orthodoxy and anti-Christian forces.” Snay (1997, 198) describes: “The debate over slavery involved a competition over the rights of interpreting the Constitution, the meaning of republicanism, the Bible, and civil religion.” Out of this war of words, Southern Pro-Slavery Evangelical clergy create the rhetorical concept of the “Christian Nation.” Snay (1997, 2) summarizes:

“For religion contributed much to the origins of Southern separatism. It invested the sectional controversy over slavery with moral and religious meaning, strengthening those elements in Southern political culture that made secession possible.”

Notably, contemporary American Evangelical socio-political rhetoric consistently emphasizes the need for unity. Therefore it is particularly interesting to consider that there was a unique and unprecedented amount of unity across the Southern Evangelical church in applying the Bible to support slavery and secession. Snay (1997, 8) describes:

“Yet in terms of their views on slavery and sectional politics, there was a conspicuous consensus among Southern clergyman. The major denominations … differed little in their approach to such sectional issues as slavery, abolition and the protection of Southern rights.”

These ideas and rhetoric were not confined to one denomination, yet were common and widespread across Christianity in the Confederate South.

This overwhelming evidence makes it already apparent that ideas of Confederate Evangelical clergy are pervasive within contemporary American Christianity. However, beyond any coincidental similarities, there exists a direct line of transmission by which these very ideas that were used to justify the vilest form of chattel slavery and rebellious secession have been incorporated into the contemporary American Evangelical experience.

Hague & Sebesta (2008, 51) describe:

“These works remained outside the more mainstream Lost Cause apologetics for the Confederacy until Southern Agrarian Richard M. Weaver (1910–1963), Christian Reconstructionist Rousas John Rushdoony (1916–2001), and Presbyterian leader C. Gregg Singer (1910–1999) revived interest in these writings after World War II.”

Two key terms must be defined: the Theological War Interpretation and Christian Reconstructionism.

The Theological War Interpretation is a “ … belief that the Confederacy was an orthodox Christian nation” (Hague & Sebesta 2008, 51). In other words, the Theological War Interpretation encompasses the beliefs of Southern Confederate clergy described thus far by this text. In particular, it focuses on the idea that the Confederate States of America had been a “Christian Nation” scripturally justified in secession, especially in order to defend the institution of chattel slavery.

Christian Reconstructionism is a theological and political ideology that, “[advocates] the establishment of biblical republics under the rule of God’s law, or “theonomy.” The people administering these republics would be those Christian Reconstructionists consider to hold orthodox interpretations of Christianity” (Hague & Sebesta 2008, 57). Simply, Christian Reconstructionism is the revival of the Theological War Interpretation, the ideas of Confederate Evangelical clergy (in particular Thornwell, Palmer, and Dabney), and the application of those ideas to contemporary American society and politics.

Christian Reconstructionist C. Gregg Singer (1964, 86–7; Hague & Sebesta 2008, 57) wrote:

“[The] Southern Presbyterian Church saw [the Civil War] as a humanistic revolt against Christianity and the world and life view of the Scriptures … Thornwell, Dabney, and their contemporaries … properly read abolitionism as a revolt against the biblical conception of society and a revolt against the doctrine of divine sovereignty in human affairs.”

Hague & Sebesta (2008, 58) further summarize:

“By the mid-1960’s, therefore, Weaver, Singer, and Rushdoony had to varying degrees reasserted that the Confederate States fought to preserve orthodox Christianity in the face of heretical abolitionism and that the Civil War was a theological war over the future direction of the United States. … These authors argued that civil rights are anti-Christian and that inequality is God’s intended order, drawing on Thornwell, Dabney, and their contemporaries to provide the historical and religious justification for this position. The role of these men in wider conservative and Christian Reconstructionist groups resulted in their views finding a broader audience amongst the religious right and other conservative factions in the United States. Through these overlapping networks, advocates of a self-styled orthodox Christianity began to converge with supporters of Confederate nationalism.”

The most influential, yet little known, leader of this neo-Confederate Theo-political revival is Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony. Hague and Sebasta (2008, 58) succinctly summarize:

“In his interpretation, Rushdoony argued that the Civil War destroyed the early American Republic, which he envisioned as a decentralized Protestant feudal system and an orthodox Christian nation. Union victory, Rushdoony maintained, was a defeat for Christian orthodoxy. Condemning public education and contending that the Civil War was not about slavery but the consolidation of federal government power, Rushdoony applauded Dabney’s defense of slavery” (Rushdoony 1964; Rushdoony 1965, 13; Hague & Sebasta 2008, 58).

Rushdoony derived his ideas directly from Confederate Evangelical clergy, in particular the ideas of Robert Lewis Dabney. In, “Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism,” Michael McVicar (Assistant Professor, American Religious History at Florida State University) describes Rushdoony’s impact as having a, “durable, if discrete, legacy,” (McVicar 2015, 215) on American Conservatism and the Religious Right. Specifically, McVicar demonstrates three particular impacts of Rushdoony’s ideas that were based primarily on the ideas Palmer, Thornwell, and Dabney.

(1) Without Rushdoony’s influence, the patriarchal, anti-state, homeschool movement would not exist as a force within American politics or Christianity. Without Rushdoony, Bill Gothard’s Quiverfull and Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum home school movements would never have existed. In simpler terms, without the work and ideas of Rushdoony, the Duggar family would not exist. Ironically, many of those that subscribe to the patriarchal model of homeschool would be absolutely horrified to find out that their very way of life derives directly from R.J. Rushdoony who subscribed to a very aggressive form of Calvinism. However, it is also important to note that the politics of homeschool defense, derived from Rushdoony, has fundamentally transformed American conservative politics (McVicar 2015, 215–221).

(2) Uganda’s homosexuality laws derive directly from the ideas of R.J. Rushdoony via the work of conservative activist Scott Lively. However, as America grapples with her new reality after the Obergeffel v. Hodges same-sex marriage ruling, McVicar predicts, “Rushdoony is likely to become something of a politically incorrect folk hero …” for Christian Conservatives feeling more and more alienated. (McVicar 2015, 223–225)

(3) The libertarian economic theory of the Tea Party would have never taken hold within the contemporary American Christianity had it not been for the work of Rushdoony and his son-in-law Gary North (who had very close connections to Ron Paul). For many decades libertarian economic theory could not be reconciled with traditional Christian notions of Biblical charity toward the poor, widows, and orphans. However, Rushdoony was able to bridge this gap and provided an ideological framework for Religious Conservatives to harmonize libertarian economics and social Darwinism with the Bible. Simply, Rushdoony is very much responsible for the contemporary marriage between the libertarian Tea Party and the socially conservative Religious Right (McVicar 2015, 226–232).

Rushdoony has also had a very clear and direct impact on contemporary American Christianity, including Charismatic Christianity. There is clear and indisputable evidence of the infusion of Rushdoony’s ideas into C. Peter Wagner’s dominion theology and his New Apostolic Reformation movement.

In C. Peter Wagner’s own words, from his book titled “Dominion!” (2008, 59):

“The practical theology that best builds a foundation under social transformation is dominion theology, sometimes called ‘Kingdom now.’ Its history can be traced through R.J. Rushdoony and Abraham Kuyper to John Calvin.”

Wagner does not hide the fact that dominion theology and the resulting New Apostolic Reformation movement is a direct derivative of the ideas and works of R.J. Rushdoony. Recall, it was Dabney (Dabney Archive) who originally stated in 1860, “Here, then, is a prominent duty, if we would save our country that we shall carry our citizenship in the kingdom of heaven everywhere, and make it dominate over every public act.”

Conclusion

Hague & Sebesta (2008, 50–1) offer a very stark warning:

“Much of neo-Confederacy articulates a commitment to constructing a new Confederation of Southern States based on a reading of Christianity and the Bible that can be identified as Christian nationalist. This is centered upon a theological assessment that interprets the nineteenth-century Confederate States of America (CSA) as having been an orthodox Christian nation. … Operating within this historical trajectory, therefore, neo-Confederate activists have utilized the theological war thesis to promote a Christian nationalist commitment to constructing a new Confederacy.”

The idea that America or any nation could be a “Christian Nation” cannot be supported by any scripture. Contemporary American Christian socio-political rhetoric, including the ideas of a “Christian Nation” and “Pray for America,” are a neo-Confederate ideology derived directly from Southern Confederate clergy that had used such ideology to justify and sanctify the vilest form of slavery in human history and southern rebellion.

Perhaps you are not convinced by this overwhelming evidence supported by primary sources and original texts. At the very least, this article has demonstrated that current American Christian socio-political rhetoric mirrors perfectly the rhetoric of Confederate clergy, which should be of immediate concern to those of us who are American Christians. However, this essay also presents evidence of a credible mode of ideological transmission of ideas used to scripturally justify slavery and secession from southern Confederate clergy (especially Robert Lewis Dabney), through the Reconstructionists (primarily R.J. Rushdoony), and into the contemporary Religious Right — including both Evangelical and Charismatic.

Beyond just the ideas of a “Christian Nation” or “Pray for America,” almost the entirety of the American Conservative Christian socio-political program is mirrored in the text and words of Confederate clergy including criticisms of education, evolution versus creationism, libertarian economics, state’s rights, anti-Christian big government conspiracies, the idea that Christians are not voting in sufficient numbers and that if they would just show up to vote they could take over American politics, and yes, even calls for Joel 2 Solemn assemblies to save America. Perhaps this is a colossal coincidence. When our entire script appears almost verbatim in 1850 by pastors advocating expanding the vilest form of chattel slavery in history and politically mobilizing their congregations for rebellious secession — we ought to ask some questions. However, when we can observe a direct line of ideological infusion into Contemporary American Christianity, not based on rumor or hearsay, but on analysis of primary sources, we should be absolutely terrified.

I leave you with two final exhibits, on which I rest my case.

(1) In a terrifying monologue, Gary North (1986) (son-in-law of Rushdoony) states:

“The ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.”

(2) Finally, the words of R.J. Rushdoony (Chandler 1986):

“There is a world of Christianity developing outside the traditional church,” Rushdoony said. “They are on the margins, functioning on their own . . . All these new groups . . . the Religious Right . . . are very receptive to our thinking.”

References

Chandler, Russell. 1986. “Leaders Assail ‘Moral Bankruptcy of Humanism and the State’: Chalcedonians Seek to Tailor U.S. Religion to Precepts of Far Right.” Los Angeles Times. March 29. <http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-29/news/mn-1286_1_humanism/2> (Accessed July 25, 2015).

“Dabney Archive.” <http://dabneyarchive.com/> (Accessed July 25, 2015).

Hague, Euan & Edward H. Sebesta. 2008. “The U.S. Civil War as a Theological War: Neo-Confederacy, Christian Nationalism, and Theology.” Hague, Euan, Heidi Beirich & Edward H. Sebesta (Eds.) Neo-confederacy: A Critical Introduction. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Loewen, James W. 2010. The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader the “great Truth” about the “lost Cause.” Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

McVicar, Michael J. 2015. Christian Reconstruction: R.J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism. University of North Carolina Press.

North, Gary. 1986 Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism. Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. 1978 [1965]. The Nature of the American System. Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. 1978 [1964]. This Independent Republic. Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press.

Singer, C. Gregg. 1994 [1964]. A Theological Interpretation.

Strickland, Nathanael. “Dabney on Sunday: Patriotism.” Faith and Heritage. <http://faithandheritage.com/2011/12/dabney-on-sunday-patriotism/> (Accessed July 25, 2015).

Snay, Mitchell. 1997. Gospel of Disunion: Religion and Separatism in the Antebellum South. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Wagner, C. Peter. 2008. Dominion!: How Kingdom Action Can Change the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books.