Reconstructionism is most closely identified with postmillennialism, but are reconstructionist values also compatible or even necessary for premillennialists, too?

First, let's go over some definitions. Premillennialism is the doctrine that the Lord Yeshua will return and establish His thousand-year kingdom of peace, followed by eternity. In equally brief and incomplete form, postmillennialism is the doctrine that Yeshua will not return until the end of a lengthy (not necessarily a literal thousand years), global, Christian reign. In the former, the kingdom is ruled by Yeshua physically, while in the latter, the kingdom is ruled by Yeshua spiritually through the church. Reconstructionism, then, is generally an outcropping, a necessary corollary really, of postmillennialism. If the Lord won't return until the world is Christianized, then the church needs to influence and eventually control and policies and governments. Reconstructionism is the movement and process of making the world largely Christian in nature. It should be noted, though, this does not necessarily imply any forced conversion of individuals, but merely changing the fabric and tone of society.

[Note: I make no effort to hide my belief that postmil is a heretical doctrine, albeit not one costing others' salvation--at least, not in and of itself. I have seen the style of hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation) that leads to postmil also lead to other, more damning heresies, though, as it tends to discount the straightforward, face-value yet contextual interpretation that leads to the premil doctrine.]

Postmillennialists' ("postmils" hereafter) complaint of premils is that we (yes, I am premil) are all waiting around stupidly, just awaiting our Lord's return, and we don't care about restoring the world around us. We just want to be raptured (taken from this world and into heaven), postmils say of us premils. In this sense, postmil's reconstructionist ("recon") views are a kind of reaction to their perception of inaction on the part of premils, in addition to being a natural consequence of the postmil doctrine. I can only speak empirically here, but I have yet to meet a premil person who cares little for this world and is merely awaiting rapture. [Update May 11, 2007: I have since met one of these unfortunate representatives of premil.] To be sure, there are differing degrees of activism, but I don't know of any premils who are simply inactive. (I do indeed know many fruitless self-named Christians who are inactive, but these generally wouldn't know premil from postmil from amil from preterist.) Premils want the world to be less hostile to Christians and to bring honor to the Lord just as much as any postmil. Their political and social activism is just as significant. Whether or not it's differently focused will be explored shortly.

I've asserted recon necessarily stems from the postmil doctrine. I've also asserted premils show no contempt for recon-esque activism, per se, despite postmils' common claim. Do premils embrace recon-proper, as opposed to recon-esque, or is there some aspect of recon that violates Biblical doctrine?

I've claimed recon does not imply forced conversion. However, one might argue it may include forced conversion, a la The Crusades. In this variant of recon, not embraed by any postmils I personally know, the doctrine has indeed gone AWOL. The Scriptures make it clear a personal relationship with the Lord must be just that, personal and personally chosen. Forced conversion, besides being disingenuous, removes free will, negating that which makes us sentient, human, specially created, and anything more than automatons. Let's toss this variant of recon aside as bunk.

What, then, is recon without forced conversion? How does the church go about Christianizing the world without force? If we're talking tactics, we may include such actions as staying in touch with our rulers, letting them know what we want (important to them only because they want to be reelected by us), running for office ourselves, lobbying government, educating the public (e.g., via nonprofits), and otherwise influencing policy. All these tactics are used by recons. I don't see any conflict with the Word in the use of these tactics. It would seem these are valid for premils as well as postmils.

An historic battle won by recons, I believe, was prohibition. It simply did not work. Of course, this brings to mind the question of whether or not morality can be legislated. In this sense, it obviously cannot be. For another example, we have more laws on the books today than ever imagined possible, yet our society is as decadent and evil as it ever has been (well, since just before the flood, anyway). Is legislated morality nothing more than a kind of forced conversion?

I propose a continuum with anarchy on one end and totalitarianism on the other. If totalitarianism does not insure a moral (and therefore possibly Christian) society, then we cannot legislate from that end of the continuum and expect to find what recons desire. Put another way, when recons take their power too far into totalitarianism, they undermine their own goals. Like prohibition, we have many such examples today of recon legislation producing the opposite effect of what's desired.

Just as clearly, though, we cannot legislate from the other end, either--that is, we cannot ignore immorality. Just because morality cannot be legislated, though, doesn't mean immorality must be legalized. To legalize or ignore immorality, we encourage unpunished crimes and the violation of others' God-given rights. Recons seem well intentioned, intent to avoid at least this end of the continuum.

The real question is where is the line drawn between anarchy and totalitarianism, such that recons don't undermine their own goals yet the world is indeed improved? If we find this line, it would seem premils can be just as happy with recon as postmils are. Free will would be maintained. Societies would be governed in a Christian fashion. Where is this line? I believe Biblical libertarianism is the key to finding this line. Laws cannot force holy behavior, but they can punish those who clearly violate others' God-given rights. Without following this rabbit trail too far, suffice it to say, we need to define our God-given rights, recognize their divine origin, and limit ourselves to protecting those who cannot otherwise protect themselves. (I qualify libertarianism with "Biblical" because certain behaviors can be strongly linked to violating others' rights even if not as directly observable as, say, murder. For example, sexual deviations tend to fall into this category due to the deep, underlying motivation for such perversions and the necessarily resultant harm to others. I'll happily defend this assertion at another time.)

Of course, a Christian government doesn't guarantee a Christian society. Much of the crime can be reduced by freeing up individuals to defend themselves (without subsequent prosecution) and "meta-crimes" needn't be defined; but how does the society as a whole become Christianized? Evangelism. Forced conversion will not work, but old fashioned Gospel-story-telling will. One by one, present the Good News to those who need it, in the way in which they need it, and slowly but surely, society will change. Of course, more than just "getting people saved," we need to disciple them into spiritual maturity.

As long as reconstructionism isn't totalitarianism, and as long as we witness and disciple individuals into spiritual maturity, premillennialists should have no trouble joining forces with postmillennialists in Christianizing the world. As easy as this is to say (and it's not all that easy, given such large words), it's much more difficult to do--to remain politically, socially, and spiritually active, yet avoid taking it too far; to tolerate non-Christian beliefs by respecting free will, yet avoid accepting socially immoral doctrine (e.g., Muslim jihad and sharia); to partner with mildly heretical postmils but refrain from endorsing totalitarianism--all this balancing is tough work.