Christians don’t have too much a problem with such a statement and there is little in this statement itself that implies Reconstructionism. Even my own primary influence, John W. Robbins, who wailed on North’s reconstructionism and theonomy wouldn’t have been too far from agreeing with the same statement. (Robbins also worked with North and Paul in Congress during that era in the ‘70s. He was a strong Calvinist and was the heir apparent of Philosopher Gordon Clark, arch nemesis of Westminster Seminary’s Cornelius Van Til, whose philosophy North subscribes to.) The issue is how it is applied. Regardless, the worldview of Christianity is hardly totalitarian. There is not word or phrase in that statement that can be used to say that the State shall force everyone to agree or follow Christianity’s teaching. Now that would be totalitarian.
When North says that the “order… denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God,” such a bold statement should be considered in context of the entire worldview of the Christian Reconstructionist. To translate that statement, North believes that if one is an enemy of God, there will eventually be a time when the Church environment is so large that it begins to overcome the secular environment. Not by force, but by progression. In other words, North believes that all of society will eventually be a Christian one and that those who come into the Church will necessarily be made to give up their “liberty” of seeking other religions. The secularist world will be crashing and the secularist person will have to jump ship.
As North says several paragraphs later in the same book that Brier quotes, “[The Christian] does not seek to expand state intervention as a means of establishing a utopia on earth.” I don’t want to get too deep into Reconstructionist theology here, but it is important to know that North does not advocate some socialist revolution of terror against the present age.
