<%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="1252"%> Fundamental Christianity, christian fundamentalist, fundamentalist, christian right, literal bible interpretation


by Gene Shaparenko


We live in a world where labels are used to compartmentalize both people and ideologies. Often these labels are the invention of individuals who intentionally strive to stigmatize people or ideologies which are opposed to their own way of thinking. In other cases, labels are invented to castigate specific societal or religious groups who get in the way of liberal, modernistic "progress".

An intense effort is made by these groups to find words, labels or phrases that place their own agenda in a favorable light while casting aspersions or worse on the activities of any opposition. Typical of this scenario are phrases such as "pro-choice" versus "pro-abortion" while the opposition is labelled as "anti-abortion" as compared to "pro-life".

"Gay rights" and "committed relationship" is in vogue for the homosexual crowd while "homophobic" or "bigot" is in season for anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda. Palestinian terrorists are now called "freedom fighters"; while Israeli's who seek to find peaceful, negotiated solutions to the Mideast conflict are called "illegal occupiers", etc.

As a society we have quietly accepted this subtle transition from what originally was plain English lexicon to words and phrases which twist pubic opinion from the real issues to a politically correct viewpoint. In effect, we now allow special interest groups to define the issues for us and steer the dialogue in a direction which avoids the true essence of the issue.

Such a situation has slowly evolved in the Christian world as it relates to "Fundamentalism". I was particularly taken by a recent article in the Weekly Standard(11/22/04) which candidly discussed this issue and identified some interesting sources of this anti-fundamentalistic diatribe. A portion of that article follows.

The aftermath of the (2004) election brought a belated realization that President Bush's victory was based in large part on increased evangelical turnout. Hence, predictably, committed religion is again an incendiary political topic, and again it is mindlessly stereotyped as "fundamentalism" and "religious extremism," characterized by closed-minded certitude--and, thus, the mirror image of Islamist extremism.

Three writers preached petulant sermons on the matter on the same New York Times op-ed page two days after the election.

Maureen Dowd called for George W. Bush's excommunication for promoting "a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq."

Thomas Friedman condemned as apostates from America those "Christian fundamentalists" who "promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad."

Garry Will, ever inquisitorial, demanded "where else" but in America "do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?" Can't guess? "We find it in the Muslim world, in al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists"--and, writes Wills, Americans fear "jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed."


Ellen Goodman conjures up apocalyptic visions of a "country racked by the fundamentalist religious wars we see across the world," and

Sean Wilentz anathematizes "the religious fanaticism that has seized control of the federal government."

Of course, people say silly things in a bleak post-election dawn. But similar litanies were recited during the campaign.

Howell Raines portrayed "God's people" as seeking to enact "theologically based cultural norms."

Joe Biden pronounced a "death struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism."

Al Gore pilloried Bush's faith as "the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, and in religions around the world.

" Robert Reich pontificated: "Terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face," the "true battle" is with "those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma."

Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, reportedly averred that Bush II understands Islamic terrorists "because he's just like them," and has visions of a Manichean "battle . . . between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion."

These people and their words speak for themselves and need no additional explanation except to note that many in this list would have us believe that they are first and foremost promoters of tolerance yet they themselves have no tolerance for other viewpoints. Webster's Dictionary has a lot of descriptors for this type of duplicity.

In the following paragraphs we will attempt to identify specifically what portion of Christianity can be accurately called "Fundamentalism" and which portions cannot and why they cannot be so identified. The answers may surprise you.


Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

There are a considerable number of excellent websites devoted to the historical aspects of Christian Fundamentalism. Google "Fundamentalism" to get good information on this aspect of the topic.

However, by way of summarization of this history, Fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This usage derives from a late 19th and early 20th century transdenominational Protestant movement that opposed the accommodation of Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy.

This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical "higher criticism" and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen.

The actual term "Fundamentalism" came into existence by way of the 14 point creed established at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward.

These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith:

(1) the literal inerrancy of the autographs(the originals of each book of the Bible);
(2) the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ;
(3) the substitutionary view of the atonement;
(4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; and
(5) the imminent return of Christ.

These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out.

Two immediate doctrinal sources for Fundamentalist thought were

(1) Millenarianism and
(2) Biblical inerrancy.

Millenarianism, a belief in the physical return of Christ to establish a 1,000 year earthly reign of blessedness, fulfilling God's promises to Abraham for Israel in the future, was a doctrine prevalent in English speaking Protestantism by the 1870s.

The principle centers of strength for Fundamentalism in these early days were Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Fort Worth, Denver, and Los Angeles. This movement was also closely associated with such prominent schools as Princeton Theological Seminary.

To step back a bit, there are at least four(4) types of "Fundamentalism".

The first, theological or Christian Fundamentalism, and the one we are focussing on in this posting, is the Christian theological movement concerned with defending traditional Christian doctrine against modern thinking as we have described above.

Political Fundamentalism is a loose combination of theological Fundamentalism and the personal commitments of religious adherents to combat worldly vices.

Manifestations of political Fundamentalism include much of the activity in the temperance movement or the virulent anticommunism of Gerald L.K. Smith. Political fundamentalism suffered a major setback by their defeat at the Scopes Monkey trial in Tennessee in 1925.

These two types of Fundamentalism melded together to combine a caricature of culturally unenlightened individuals bent on preserving tradition at the expense of progress. This Cultural Fundamentalism was cynically portrayed by social critics such as H.L. Mencken and novelists such as Sinclair Lewis. William Jennings Bryan served as the prototype for Mencken after the debacle of the Scopes trial.

The political activity engaged in by Fundamentalists invited comparison to other religiously motivated groups around the world. Accordingly, Global Fundamentalism as a phenomena denotes many religiously motivated politically active groups existing in a variety of religious traditions and political systems.

Hence, the term "Fundamentalist" began to be used to describe members of globally militant Islamic groups, gaining popularity around the time of Islamic uprising in Lebanon several decades ago.

Perhaps the lack of a central organization and a normative creed, certainly the caricature of Fundamentalism arising from the Scopes Trial, the popularization of the liberal response by representatives like Harry Emerson Fosdick, well publicized divisions among Fundamentalists themselves, and preoccupations with the Depression of the 1930s and World War II curtailed Fundamentalism's appeal. By 1950 it was either isolated and muted or had taken on the more moderate tones of Evangelicalism.

In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Fundamentalism again became an influential force in the United States. Promoted by popular television evangelists and represented by such groups as the Moral Majority, the new politically oriented "Religious Right" or "Christian Right" opposed the influence of liberalism and secularism in American life, but not necessarily standing for all of the "fundamentals" and their doctrinal sources as listed above.

This, then is the critical issue of this posting: What is it that distinguishes true, biblical Fundamentalism from the Christian Right and other so-called "Christian" entities?


(Who is The Christian Right?)(also click HERE for an indepth analysis)

At the end of the 1980s, it was commonly assumed that the Christian Right consisted entirely of evangelical Protestants. Polls from that period suggested that evangelical Protestants comprised the majority of adherents, but many members of the Christian Right were not evangelical Protestants, and many evangelical Protestants were not members of the Christian Right. More precisely, the Christian Right drew support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists.

At the same time, many evangelical Protestants showed little interest in the Christian Right's political goals. Those believers, who might be called evangelical outsiders, included confessional Protestants (especially of Dutch and German extraction), Protestants from the generally apolitical peace churches like the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, fervently Fundamentalist Protestants who were so conservative that they held no hope for America or any civil society, and black and Latino Protestants who tended to be politically liberal though theologically and culturally evangelical.

Evangelical outsiders also included millions of born-again Protestants who were generally sympathetic to the political aims of the Christian Right but, as a practical matter, remained more interested in the devotional aims or charitable work of the church than in winning elections.

It may be helpful, then, to think of the Christian Right as the common area occupying the middle of two overlapping circles of theological viewpoints. The common area consists of

(1) evangelicals who cared enough about the political goals of the Christian Right to leave their pews and get out the vote; and
(2) non-evangelicals who cared enough about the political goals of the Christian Right to work with evangelicals(conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists).

Today, a more common description of the "Christian Right" would encompass much if not all of the Pentacostal and Charismatic movements and groups which fall under the "Dominion" label(Reconstructionists, Kingdom Now adherents, Reformed and Calvinist believers and several others).

None of these groups qualify as Fundamentalists in that they do not follow one or more of the basic tennants of Christianity as defined above.

One would think that these two groups(Charismatics/Pentacostals and Calvinists (Reconstructionists)) are the most unlikely of partners in that historically, Calvinism and charisma have not mixed. Nevertheless, many within the two movements have much in common and have become more deeply intertwined and mutually supportive in the last two decades.

Fundamentalists do not share either Calvinism or charismatic theology and thus are truly not an integral part of the Christian Right.

Charismatics of all stripes believe that the canon of scripture is incomplete and is constantly being amended by utterances by many within their ranks(so-called "prophets" of the Manifest Sons of God(MSOG) and Latter Rain movements) which sprang out of the Pentacostal movements in Western Canada about 50 years ago and became the forerunner of much of the current Charismatic movement.

This is not Fundamentalism, but a display of "signs and wonders" of questionable source which is strikingly similar to what the antichrist will display during the last days described in Revelation in the New Testament and thus deceive the entire unsaved world.

The Manifest Sons of God(MSOG) heresy(http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m22.html) appears in many forms, and under many names, including: the Manchild Company, the Sonship, the Melchisedek Priesthood, the Shulamites, Joel's Army or Joel's Company, Elijah Company, the Many-membered Christ, the New Order, Overcomers, God's Army, the Corporate Body, Feast of Tabernacles, Tabernacle of David, etc.

Meanwhile, most in the Dominion movement(Reconstructionists, et al.) (Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionionism; House & Ice, Multnomah Press)believe that the "last days" described in the Bible actually occured in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed, and that we are now living in a time when the church is to take dominion over not only the world but its social, legal and governmental institutions and apply Old Testament Law to the current judicial processes. (see our review of this book below).

This is not Fundamentalism, but an attempt by man, in his own intelligence, wisdom and strength, to do what only Christ will do upon his return to earth at the end of the current age.

Led by the so-called "intelligencia" of the Reconstructionist movement, strong efforts are being made to bring the democratic process in the USA down and replace it with a theocratic leadership. Gary North(Mr. Y2K) said it best as Y2K approached several years ago:

"...of course I want to see Y2K bring down the (democratic) system, all over the world. This(Y2K) will decentralize the social order. I have hoped for this(destruction of democracy and replacement with a theocracy) all of my adult life. Y2K is our deliverance."

Individuals who view the Christian Right's attempts to implant specific legislation to extend the role of religion in government are therefore correct in their perception...however, these are not Fundamental Christians pushing this agenda, but once again an amalgamation of the Pentacostal/Charismatic and Dominion/Reconstructionist groups.

While Reconstructionists appear to be well within the stream of historic Christian orthodoxy, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity and humanity of Jesus, total deparvaity, salvation by race through faith and godliness in the Christian walk, by hob-nobbing with others having questionable doctrines, they have essentially come to many of the same conclusions as the Charismatics in their teachings, again some considerable distance from what we have defined as Fundamentalists.

Of particular interest is the common ground both groups share with respect to the future of Israel in prophecy(see www.aquatechnology.net/RESURGENCE.html).

The Charismatics say, by way of the MSOG:

"...There is no more old covenant with Israel, and there never will be".(Great Escape Theory, by Earl Paulk, page 13).

Reconstructionists(with or without a Preterist position)echo that position:

"...Ethnic israel was excommunicated for its apostacy and will never again be God's Kingdom... The Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation". Paradise Restored, David Chilton, page 224.

These positions are the result of allegorizing, spiritualizing or simply ignoring major portions of the Old and New Testament discussions regarding the future regeneration of a remnant of national Israel and bestowing the covenantal promises that God made to Abraham regarding Israel.

By comparison, Fundamentalists are predominantly dispensationalists who believe in a future, 70th week of Daniel where the world comes under the control of an antichrist and when a remnant of national Israel accepts Jesus Christ as Messiah, after which Christ reigns on earth during the promised Millennium. Reconstructionists badmouth dispensationalism at every turn since it opposes their man-oriented societal reconstruction efforts.

Both Charismatics and Reconstructionists(including the Roman Catholic Church with which both groups continue to develop ecumenical relationships) insist that the current Christian church has assumed the position of Israel and inherited the convental promises to Abraham, while the Jewish nation has been assigned the discipline and condemnation of God. There is no question that the current Jewish nation is under discipline; but there is no biblical support for the Reconstructionist's Replacement Theology of substituting the church in assuming ownership of the Abrahamic covenants.

Again, this is NOT Fundamentalism but an effort by man(and the church) to presume that the church will prevail in this age to convert the world and instill legalism as it was in the Old Testament and thus "bring in the Kingdom of God" before Christ can return to the earth again. Reconstructionists apparently don't believe that "...narrow is the way, and few there be that find it".

This Replacement Theology is outright heresy and constitutes error which started with Augustine and the Catholic Church in the fourth century and continues to invade more and more of the Evangelical and mainstream Protestant churches, leading them away from the Biblical Fundamentals which all of them relied on in their early church developments.

Reconstructionists and Charismatics find a strong ally in the Catholic church in that the Catholic church shares their disdain of Fundamental Christians. While Catholics are highly ecumenical in nature and wish to welcome back the "wandering brothers" who broke with the Catholic church during during the Reformation, their writers and apologists reserve their strongest attack for Bible-believing fundamentalism.

A book one can purchase at Catholic bookstores entitled Fundamentalism, A Pastoral Concern illustrates that their attack of Fundamentalism is premised on the most unfair arguments possible.

The "intelligencia" or "illuminated" scholars who populate the Dominion/Reconstuctionist movement view Fundamentalism in similar to those listed below from this book by the Catholic Church (reasons the Catholic Church gives for anyone being a Fundamentalist Christian):

"Fundamentalism is a social problem." (Fundamentalism, A Pastoral Concern by Eugene LaVerdiere, published by The Liturgical Press, p. 12.)

In the face of "social instability, cultural transformations, demographic dislocations, and sweeping changes ... a large segment of the human population is bound to suffer from enormous insecurity." (Ibid., p. 13.)

"Unable to cope with such instability, many turn to the absolute authority of a divine Word that they grasp in a fundmentalist way." (Ibid.)

"Second, we note that fundamentalism is most rampant among the poor, in depressed areas, and among those who have seen nearly every fact of life change and who find themselves struggling to find a stable footing in life." (Ibid.)

"It should not surprise us to find fundamentalists in populations of poor immigrants for whom church structures in the land to which they have immigrated are inadequate." (Ibid.)

In the final analysis, the one difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Catholics is the Holy Bible. Their Bible is human and can be corrected and enlarged; and it has been many, many times. Every strange doctrine of the Catholic Church is part of their human Bible that they have enlarged and even corrected. Bible-believers are committed to the absolute Word of God that is pure and perfect.

No one has the right to add to or subtract from it one word. Remember, you will be judged by this Book that is forever settled in Heaven. At the judgment, if you present your earthly Bible as your argument you will be found guilty. The rest will be tears and sorrow forever.

Institutionialized Christianity(including Catholocism) has responded to and even encouraged this "new anti-semitism", however subtly. The largest operating international church fellowship, the World Council of Churches(WCC) is less subtle and repeatedly misrepresents and denounces Israeli, but not Palestinian policy. According to Gerald McDermott's "The Land: Evangelicals and Israel", the WCC regards the creation of the modern Jewish state as "problematic". "Problematic"?

This same august organization initiated an international movement in 2002 called Ecumenical Campaign to End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine...a vigilante committee reporting on Israel's(not Palestininan terrorists') "violations of human rights".

Does this body which claims to represent 400 million Christian believers in more than 100 countries represent this new Christian anti-semitism?

Closer to home, the National Council of Churches(NCC), composed of 50 million believers in 36 different Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox denominations and calling itself the"leading force for cooperation amongst Christians in America", in 2002 condemned Israel for her treatment of Palestinians, but did not censure Palestinians for their murderous terror against Israel. Many evangelical churches are leaving the NCC for this and other reasons.

The leadership of the Presbyterian Church recently decided to encourage its governing body to promote divestment from companies that do business with Israel. Reconstuctionism has taken a strong foodhold in the Presbyterian churches and this explains its divestment directives.

Shortly thereafter, the Anglican church, the Lutheran church and the World Council of Churches (WCC, with 347 member denominations world-wide) followed suit with the explanation that divestment

"...(is) a new way to work for peace, by looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation."

These churches are among those often referred to as "mainline" churches.

The most problematic issue of this new “mainline” posture is that it is clearly intended to support the Arab terror war against Israel; and to justify that support, church spokespersons make use of false information about the conflict.

A review of factual information about the conflict and the nature of divestment reveals that the mainline churches have stood up in favor of a process that is illegal, irrational, immoral, biased against Israel and in favor of Israel’s enemies, and consciously oblivious to the transparent lies of divestment proponents.

Moreover, by supporting divestment, they ignore the real threats of global terrorism which seeks, among other things, the destruction of all other forms of religion in the world, including Christianity.

The mainline churches' stand, therefore, is quite literally self-destructive.

Where does this hate and bias against Israel and anti-Fundamentalism come from and why are we seeing it in our generation, perhaps the last generation before Christ returns?

One explanation may well be the strong language and efforts that are being dispensed by the Dominion and Kingdom Now theology advocates against Fundamentalist activities which question or refute this anti-semitic position of the Reconstructionists and MSOG advocates:

"Some of the strongest fundamental churches still preach that Christ will return to gather national Israel unto Himself, and I say that is deception and will keep the Kingdom of God from coming to pass!

Likewise, those who are waiting for Christ to catch(rapture) a few people away so God can judge the world are waiting in vain!". Earl Paulk, The Handwriting on the Wall (Decatur, Ga. Chapel Hill Harvester Church)

This rhetoric is combined with that of heretics such as Bishop John Shelby Spong and his recent book entitled "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". Spong openly promotes homosexuality and same-sex marriage; he believes that the Apostle Paul was a homosexual and virulently states that anyone who believes that the bible is literally true is an idiot or worse.

Unfortunately, many people(and the media) believe him and his heretical ravings and consequently cast aspersions on any individual or church which would be so bold to declare that the Bible is in fact the Word of God and not a collection of poetic symbology as Spong and other detractors claim.

Hopefully, we are narrowing what truly constitutes Fundamental Christianity.

Fundamental Christians also avoid identification with the Pentacostal and Charismatic movements since Charismatics have much in common with the New Age Movement. An interesting comparison is available at http://www.dtl.org/treatise/parallels-1.htm.

In brief, both movements are experientially oriented as opposed to reliance on biblical truth; they fail to test these experiences based on biblical research; they twist scripture to meet a presumptious belief; and rely on "Positive Thinking/Confession"approaches to sin and salvation.

Both movements are severely lacking a knowledge of church history. Both ascribe to some kind of restoration belief. New Agers teach,

"The early church taught reincarnation … until the sixth century when it was suppressed at a church council". (Grudel, p. 8).

An in-depth refutation of this claim would require an article in itself. Suffice it to say here, that even a cursory reading of the writings of the Church Fathers would show that they believed in resurrection, not reincarnation.

Similarly, charismatics believe the spiritual gifts were suppressed by the early Church. They further claim the gifts did not re-appear till the Azuzu Street "Revivals" of the early 1900’s.

However, there was no suppression of the gifts. They just gradually lost importance after apostolic times. Also, there have been isolated groups throughout Church history that have manifested the charismata. However, from the Montanists of the second century to the Mormons of the nineteenth century, many have been heretical or, at least, at the "fringe" of the Christian faith (Butler, pp. 23-68).

Perhaps the most striking similarity between segments of the Charismatic and New Age movements is the both groups believe that one can be a god or mature to be "manifested" as a Son of God and thus defy disease, death and other earthly limitations. Once again, both groups are moving closer and closer to the promise that Satan made to Eve in the Garden of Eden regarding "...being as God". Inspect some of their beliefs in depth and this message comes out loud and clear.


The bible describes a one-world religion in the Last Days, a false religion devoid of any true spiritual compass and which worships the antichrist who, like many modern day charismatic and pentacostal leaders and followers, exhibit various and sundry deceptive "signs and wonders".

It is not difficult to imagine this future situation, where individuals who have been accustomed to looking for visual manifestations of spirituality(tongues, Marian apparitions, signs and so forth) are easily convinced that a world leader who exhibits these selfsame spiritual characteristics, is in fact sent by God.

Today's dogmatic pronouncement by certain Charismatic and Pentacostal leaders that one is not really "saved" or spiritually on the right track unless they exhibit some outward sign of such spirituality, principally tongues, is proof that faith is rapidly taking a doctrinal backseat to so-called spiritual "signs", and thus preparing the way for Antichrist and the deceived hordes who will follow him.

Meanwhile, the ecumenical effort to unite various religious groups under the least common doctrinal denominator is growing. Charismatics, Pentacostals and even the Kingdom Now/Dominionists and Reconstructionist movements are all aligning themselves ecumenically with groups which were considered anethema a generation ago.

Promise Keepers has played a significant role in not only reducing doctrinal differences to this "least common doctrinal denominator" by way of ecumenicism but downplayed the importance of the Great Commission's directive to reach out to the world with the gospel's message of salvation.

Catholics, Mormons and even clearly unsaved groups are being called "brothers in Christ" simply because they share a common charisma, tongues. The differentiation of many Charismatic and Dominion beliefs from that of New Age adherents is difficult to determine.

This doctrinal deficient approach to "church unity" and the resultant, uncontrolled ecumenicism will indeed bring forth the last days apostacy prophecied throughout the bible.

In all of this, true Fundamental Christians still stand alone, rejecting the "new revelations" being offered daily by the Pentacostal and Charismatic churches and rejecting the legalism and intellectual dishonesty offered by the Dominion/Reconstructionist groups.

It would be indeed rare to find a true Fundamentalist Christian involved in the political action committees sponsored and supported by the Christian Right.

The Fundamentalist is focussed on personal evangelism and soulwinning combined with planting and supporting churches which still preach and adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Maranatha.


AMAZON.COM Reviewer: Eugene V. Shaparenko (Pismo Beach, CA.)

Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionionism

Reconstructionism - thinly disguised anti-semitism, May 2, 2005

Many individuals simply are unaware that there is a small but growing group of Christian legalists who want to take over the courts, the legislatures and other civic functions to create a theocratic state instead of a democracy here in the US. This model is then to be extended to the world at large where all mankind, of all religious persuasions would be subject to this theocratic belief.

What Islam would have worldwide by way of the sword, Reconstructionists would have by way of the so-called intelligencia of the Christian world imposing on that same world, with penalties for disobedience ranging from disfellowship to stoning.

Such is the goal of this small but politically active segment of the Evangelical Christian community called Reconstructionism.

Ice and House bring historical as well as biblical horsepower to bear in bringing Reconstructionism to account on issues which truth-seeking fundamental and evangelical Christians need to understand in these Last Days.

As Ice and House's well documented discussion points out, many of these Reconstructionists may well be born-again believers but much of their self-styled theology appears to have been scrambled in the frappe cycle of mom's blender.

Equally good as a history book of Christianity since the first century. Exposes the growing links between Roman Catholic, Reconstructionist, and Manifest Sons of God/Latter Rain(charismatic) beliefs.

Our Jewish friends should read this book to help them distinguish the difference between this so-called "intelligencia" of the Christian Right who espouse a thinly veiled anti-semitism in their theology and firm, bible-beliveing Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who do not have to parse words and phrases in the bible to understand and explain the past, present and future of the Jews and Israel.

The Road to Holocaust by Hal Lindsey

Unmasking Christian Antisemitism -, May 2, 2005

A definitive work on the combined history of Israel and the Jews from both the New and Old Testaments.

This is the book that sticks in the craw of Reconstructionists and their followers who, as Gary North(Mr. Y2K) has said on many occasions, would love to see democracy in the USA replaced by a theocracy, with home, church and government obedient to the letter of Old Testament Law and see both modern and ancient Israel thrown into the wastebasket of history.

Lindsey correctly identifies the "replacement theologists" in the Dominion Now, Reconstructionist camps and how they have followed the lead of the Catholic Church since 400 AD in teaching that the church has the right to ursurp the promises and convenants made to Abraham.

Lindsey exposes the subtle attacks on Israel's legitimacy being made by these Reconstructionists and Theonomists who are a small but vocal part of the Evangelical Christian Church.

Lindsey's scriptural arguments are rock solid and provide the reader with an excellent tutorial on how a small segment of the Jewish community still is in God's plan for the endtimes.

If you've ever wondered how a very small segment of what the media refers to as the Christian Right has tried to turn bible history past, present and future into an anti-semitic diatribe, read this book .

Finally, if you are Jewish(Messianic or otherwise) and want to understand why this group called Dominion Theologists and Reconstuctionists do not represent bible believing Christians who understand and support the true destiny of Israel, read this book.