Dominionism Openly Preached at Jindal Prayer Rally

In today’s least surprising news, Bobby Jindal’s ridiculous prayer rally contained prayers and preaching that advocated openly for Christian dominionism, specifically the “seven mountains” variety thereof. Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum was one of those who did it:

Christians have been tasked to take control of “the sphere of influence around civil government,” Mills said, because all areas of culture “belong to God.” Jindal’s prayer rally, Mill’s declared, was a key component of their effort “to reclaim territory that rightfully belongs to God” because “these seven spheres of influence are under enemy occupation right now.”

After revealing that last month, he and other prayer rally organizers knelt in prayer with Jindal “asking God to break unholy alliances” over these areas of society, Mills led the gathering in a similar prayer.

“Father, we cry out for the seven mountains of influence today,” Mills said. “We pray that you will give us government, arts and entertainment, education, the church, and the family. That our ambassadors would occupy the high places. That you would bring us into a place of understanding that they need to be occupied by the body of Christ because it’s rightfully His.”

This is not just about where to draw the line on separation of church and state, this is advocating an actual, genuine theocracy. Hell, Jindal said so in the invitation to the event, which said:

“We are in need of spiritual and transforming revival if we are to recapture the vision of our early leaders who signed on the Mayflower, ‘In the name of God and for the advancement of the Christian faith.’”

That vision was not of a free society, it was of a brutal and oppressive Christian theocracy. In the Plymouth Bay Colony that was established by the Mayflower Compact, you could be fined, imprisoned, exiled and even put to death just for being the wrong brand of Christian, much less a Jew, Muslim or atheist.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Synfandel

    That you would bring us into a place of understanding that they need to be occupied by the body of Christ because it’s rightfully His.

    How long does one have to have been immersed in church culture before one can make sense of this sort of gibberish? I generally find religio-babble such as this about as comprehensible as a Sarah Palin speech.

  • dugglebogey

    It’s an actual FACT that those that desire christianity to be the law are anti-American.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Synfandel #1,

    That you would bring us into a place of understanding that they need to be occupied by the body of Christ because it’s rightfully His.

    How long does one have to have been immersed in church culture before one can make sense of this sort of gibberish? I generally find religio-babble such as this about as comprehensible as a Sarah Palin speech.

    Really? You find that hard to grasp? You have difficulty understanding that he means please put Christians in charge of government, arts, …?. It seems to me rather easy to make sense out of what he said. It is nothing at all like Palin’s word salad.

  • Loqi

    I was similarly confused by that … attempted sentence, Synfandel. It’s also perhaps the most egregious case of pronoun abuse I’ve ever seen.

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    @ Synfandel

    It’s standard religionist bullying: we are entitled to be in charge because god. They say this shit in godspeak so as not to alarm the others too much.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    It’s an actual FACT that those that desire christianity to be the law are anti-American.

    I don’t have an opinion as to whether they are anti-American, but I have an opinion that they are anti-Christian. This is based on the fact that there is no instruction in the NT to create Christian states. On the contrary, the instruction is that you are a citizen of some other place (the kingdom of God), and wherever you happen live on earth, it is effectively as an alien.

  • raven

    That vision was not of a free society, it was of a brutal and oppressive Christian theocracy.

    It was so dysfunctional and oppressive that it ultimately failed. The Puritans are extinct, morphing into the Congregationalists and Unitarians. The height of American theocracy was the murder of 25 alleged witches at Salem, Massachusetts. They also killed a few heretics, Unitarians and Quakers. Rhode Island was founded by people fleeing Xian oppression.

    How long does one have to have been immersed in church culture before one can make sense of this sort of gibberish?

    A few minutes.

    All religious babble translates into English as, “Shut up, send us lots of money, and do what we tell you to do.” In times past backed up by the possibility of getting murdered on top of a pile of firewood.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Good luck taking over arts and entertainment. We’ve got tits. Like rock in rock-paper-scissors, they can’t lose.

  • eric

    Jindal appears to be carving out his niche for the presidential run: pandering to the kooks nobody else will pander to. Kinda funny, however, that he’s pandering to people who, in the ‘colonies’ they so desparately want to bring back, would’ve gladly treated someone from India as a manservant or worse.

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    please put Christians in charge of government, arts, …?

    No, he did not say that. There’s no “please”.

    Christians have been tasked to take control of “the sphere of influence around civil government,” Mills said, because all areas of culture “belong to God.” Jindal’s prayer rally, Mill’s declared, was a key component of their effort “to reclaim territory that rightfully belongs to God” because “these seven spheres of influence are under enemy occupation right now.”

    It reads a whole lot more like “fundy christers must establish a theocracy”. Those of us not so keen on the idea of theocracy are the “enemies”.

  • raven

    It is telling that all Jindal can get to support him are ugly kooks from the right wing of the christofascists.

    While they claim the right to rule the USA, in reallityland, their religion is dying. And the more they threaten the rest of us, the fewer xians there will be. They have nothing to offer but a New Dark Age.

  • raven

    Those of us not so keen on the idea of theocracy are the “enemies”.

    That’s me.

    I even gave up my religion (Mainline Protestant Xianity) for the cause.

    I have no doubt that these clowns would burn me at the stake if they ever got power.

    Hitchen’s Rule: Xianity lost its best argument when it lost the power of the gun, noose, and stack of firewood. And they are well aware of it.

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    @12

    They’d have thrown me on the bonfire when I was 7 if they had known what I was thinking.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    eric “Jindal appears to be carving out his niche for the presidential run: pandering to the kooks nobody else will pander to.”

    Is it a niche if virtually every GOP presidential hopeful is fighting for a space in it?

  • Synfandel

    heddle:

    Really? You find that hard to grasp? You have difficulty understanding that he means please put Christians in charge of government, arts, …?. It seems to me rather easy to make sense out of what he said.

    Yes, really.

    How long have you been immersed in church culture? I grew up completely outside it, and truly do find sermonizing and religious speech-making completely baffling. Without the cultural touchstones, it doesn’t make one jot of sense, even if one corrects for atrocious grammar.

    What are these “seven mountains of influence”? Are they a metaphor for the five cultural facets that Jindal listed: government, arts and entertainment, education, the church, and the family? What are the two “mountains” that he left out? Is government one of the “spheres of influence around civil government”? What does the “body of Christ” have to do with any of this? He’s been (at best) non-corporeal for a couple of millennia.

    As soon as a speech starts to sound like a sermon, try this exercise… Reduce the metaphors, biblical allusions, and magical churchy language to plain, denotative English and see if you have anything left that even vaguely resembles a coherent statement. I’d bet that most times you will not. Refuse to play the “guess what I really mean” game. Require the speaker to actually say something. You’ll probably find that he doesn’t have anything to say.

  • Trebuchet

    In the Plymouth Bay Colony that was established by the Mayflower Compact, you could be fined, imprisoned, exiled and even put to death just for being the wrong brand of Christian, much less a Jew, Muslim or atheist.

    Or Catholic. Like Jindal.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Synfandel #15 ,

    I get it. You have trouble understanding what he is saying. I just don’t get why.

    Kamaka #10

    No, he did not say that. There’s no “please”.

    I would say there is. I paraphrased a prayer. I think we can grant, on the a common understanding of prayer, that he is asking god, not telling him, and so “please” in the paraphrase is more than reasonable.

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    I’m sure this bunch think Jindal is disposable if he ever takes the Presidency. Once he’s done what they need they’d get rid of him. Of course, given their propensity to see plots behind every tree, I suspect they also fear that Jindal has some evil Catholic scheme he’s trying to pull off. They probably have nightmares of Jindal importing millions of Latin American Catholics to outbreed them and force the horrors of Papism on them.

  • eric

    Heddle @6:

    This is based on the fact that there is no instruction in the NT to create Christian states.

    That may be true, but like many Christians they don’t just pay attention to the NT, they also pay attention to the OT. Genesis 1:28 (KJV), my bold:

    “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

    Anyway, as far as I know, that’s where the term Dominionism comes from: they think they have a God-given mandate to rule over the earth and every living thing on it. Including non-Christian humans, evidently. This also shows why there are close ties between Dominionism and the Quiverfull movement: both theologies are drawing their inspiration and putting heavy emphasis on the exact same passage(s).

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Synfandel “How long have you been immersed in church culture?”

    Not long. Any more than an hour or so and my fingers and toes go all wrinkly.

     

    “You’ll probably find that he doesn’t have anything to say.”

    Alternately, that he’s pointing at himself and saying “Us!” then at you and saying “Them!”.

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    @heddle

    You claim this patriarch is speaking to god, but he’s saying it out loud, so I think his intent is to speak to people.

    Gene Mills is not very nice. In fact, I say he is a nasty fucking bullyboy. But go ahead and stand behind him.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Kamaka #21,

    Gene Mills is not very nice. In fact, I say he is a nasty fucking bullyboy. But go ahead and stand behind him.

    Are you fucking stupid? How exactly am I standing behind him? In #6 I called his position anti-Christian. Is that your idea of my standing behind him?

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    Now, now, let’s not be calling names.

    Heddle, twice you used “please” as a word associated with this asshole’s rant, which rant in no way contained anything “pleasy”, just nasty “I’m in charge sez god” bullying.

    That’s you putting frosting on a shitcake.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Kamaka,

    In #21 You took the utterly ridiculous approach: I don’t like X. I made a criticism of X. You don’t agree with my particular criticism of X. Therefore you stand behind X.

    Utter nonsense.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Kamaka,

    which rant in no way contained anything “pleasy”

    Sure. Because in no universe can the phrase “We pray that you will give us” ever be paraphrased as “God, please.” Why, the possibility makes the mind reel. You are right, what was I thinking?

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    Turning this:

    We pray that you will give us government, arts and entertainment, education, the church, and the family. That our ambassadors would occupy the high places.That you would bring us into a place of understanding that they need to be occupied by the body of Christ because it’s rightfully His.

    Into this:

    he means please put Christians in charge of government, arts, …?

    I call nonsense right back at you.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Kamaka #26,

    Really? It seems like a more than reasonable paraphrase. And the please part seems especially evident. But, well, fair enough. Whatever floats your boat. I certainly don’t want to disagree with you too much because as we have seen that is, in your calculus, tantamount to supporting Gene Mills.

  • whheydt

    Isn’t this just the fundie version of “Kinder, Kirche, Kueche”?

  • Al Dente

    Dominionism is about power. A bunch of megalomaniacs want power and are using religion to justify them having power. We see exactly the same thing with IS wanting to reestablish the caliphate or when the Ayatollahs turned Iran into an “Islamic Republic.” Since Christianity is the major religion in the US, the Dominionists are using Christianity to justify their hunger for power. The lower ranks of the Dominionists are true-believer, fundamentalist Christians, but the hierarchy don’t care about Christianity except as a route to political power.

  • Michael Heath

    It’s an actual FACT that those that desire christianity to be the law are anti-American.

    heddle responds:

    I don’t have an opinion as to whether they are anti-American, but I have an opinion that they are anti-Christian. This is based on the fact that there is no instruction in the NT to create Christian states. On the contrary, the instruction is that you are a citizen of some other place (the kingdom of God), and wherever you happen live on earth, it is effectively as an alien.

    heddle, this is standard-issue conservative Christianity in the U.S.A. It is not only not ‘anti-Christian’, but defines a far bigger portion of theologically conservative Christianity than what you claim is Christian. In fact I’ve yet to find your description of Christianity even show up in voter polls while this population is not only dominant in the GOP, but is also the most sought after voting group the Republican party markets itself towards.

    This dominionist argument we both oppose is also not a novel argument, I was steeped in this language growing up in fundie land in the late-1960s and ’70s. Mike Huckabee argues that God’s law trumps the U.S. Constitution, while the same non-reconstructionist believers who also advocate this position claim they are distinguished protectors of American ideals and defending the Constitution. So while he’s not as radical as the yahoos described here, he’s only a couple of degrees different on the same ever-purer fundie path dominioinists are.

    I get that the unambiguous meaning of some passages in the NT has politically active theologically conservative Christians only not following those edicts – but has them as the largest sub-population that oppose those [laudable] biblical edicts. Ironically these Christians are far bigger opponents of these biblical edicts than non-religious secularists such as myself or say, Sam Harris. But you know the Bible can easily be used to take very contrary positions and that authoritarians are by definition denialists.

    It’s long been my perspective, and perhaps you share it, that these politically active conservative Christians are far more motivated by politics than their religious beliefs. And that behavior, as you point out, does not square with New Covenant theology. But that doesn’t make them ‘anti-Christian’. In meat-world I’m surrounded by these types. They are steeped in the new covenant and live it out a in very narrow perspective. In meat-world no one would call them ‘anti-Christian’ or ‘not a Christian’ as you do here. They’re instead typically perceived as ‘salt of the earth’ Christians, many give money through their church to the less fortunate (so they can proselytize them) or help out at shelters or kitchens.

    From my perspective these Christians are such deluded sheep they’re not even aware of how far they’ve distanced themselves from NT dogma on public policy, positions that has them causing far more human suffering compared to the tiny benefits they provide with their individual local or missionary efforts. But doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere, or not a Christian. They’re just a different type, where that’s a lot of types of Christians.

  • abb3w

    @15ish, Synfandel

    What are these “seven mountains of influence”?

    Quoth one source (emphasis added)

    In 1975, Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, and Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With a Mission, had lunch together in Colorado. God simultaneously gave each of these change agents a message to give to the other. During that same time frame Francis Schaeffer was given a similar message. That message was that if we are to impact any nation for Jesus Christ, then we would have to affect the seven spheres, or mountains of society that are the pillars of any society.

    These seven mountains are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion.

    In short: these are the levers of power that those whackos think God has told them to grab onto and shove.

    You can find more on these sort of nuts over at RightWingWatch.org in their “Seven Mountains” topic category; the “New Apostolic Reformation” seems closely related.

    @15ish, Synfandel

    Require the speaker to actually say something. You’ll probably find that he doesn’t have anything to say.

    That the speech is semantically meaningless doesn’t mean it doesn’t include meaningful phatic signalling. It’s like a symphony played on dog-whistle.

    @28, whheydt:

    Isn’t this just the fundie version of “Kinder, Kirche, Kueche”?

    Similar, yet somehow more fascist than the KKK version.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Michael Heath,

    heddle, this is standard-issue conservative Christianity in the U.S.A. It is not only not ‘anti-Christian’, but defines a far bigger portion of theologically conservative Christianity than what you claim is Christian.

    Which, true or not, is irrelevant to my charge of anti-Christian. You’ll note I was careful to say I have an opinion that their dominionism is anti-Christian. I don’t care if every Christian in the word claims that the NT supports dominionism–I would hold to my opinion that, from my reading of the NT, such positions are, in fact, anti-Christian.

    It’s long been my perspective, and perhaps you share it, that these politically active conservative Christians are far more motivated by politics than their religious beliefs.

    Share it? Why I’ve been claiming that for years, only to be charged, repeatedly, with making a “No True Scotsman” argument. Even though I do not deny that they are Christians.

    In meat-world no one would call them ‘anti-Christian’ or ‘not a Christian’ as you do here.

    I’m in the meat world. And I have, in public, both at secular gatherings and in conservative churches, referred to the dominionist position as anti-Christian. I did not, however, say that they were not Christians. My circle of orthodoxy is pretty damn big. I do not consider dominionism to be blasphemous, just very wrong.

    From my perspective these Christians are such deluded sheep they’re not even aware of how far they’ve distanced themselves from NT dogma on public policy, positions that has them causing far more human suffering compared to the tiny benefits they provide with their individual local or missionary efforts. But doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere, or not a Christian. They’re just a different type, where that’s a lot of types of Christians.

    Well, I could quibble that when you stated they are “far more motivated by politics than their religious beliefs” that that you more or less leveled a charge of a certain lack of sincerity in their Christianity. But nevertheless, I never questioned their Christianity. I question their theology and their exegesis. I’m willing to grant that they are Christian (how the hell would I know one way or the other?) and that they are sincere, but are sincerely wrong in adopting a theology that in my opinion is contrary to the NT–hence anti-Christian– in as much as the NT should be the rule of life for Christians.

  • Michael Heath

    timgueguen writes:

    I’m sure this bunch think Jindal is disposable if he ever takes the Presidency. Once he’s done what they need they’d get rid of him. Of course, given their propensity to see plots behind every tree, I suspect they also fear that Jindal has some evil Catholic scheme he’s trying to pull off. They probably have nightmares of Jindal importing millions of Latin American Catholics to outbreed them and force the horrors of Papism on them.

    Conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants have become very close allies. They’ll be no political fall-out between them because Jindal’s a Catholic; his brown skin’s is obviously an issue with conservative white Protestants.

    The animosity between these two groups has been quickly dying out since the rise of the so-called pro-life movement and the rise of Fox News. It’s also generational. Baby boomers and the generations that follow have much less antipathy for the other sect than the generations prior to them. And let’s not forget the U.S. Supreme Court has five Catholic justices, four them appointed by two non-Catholic conservative Republican presidents. That’s led to no political fall-out for Republican leaders who aren’t Catholic but promote Catholics and work with them.

    In an earlier age five Catholics on the court would have been “proof” that Rome controlled the party nominating the country. Instead this fact merely reveals that conservative Catholics value education while theologically conservative Protestants remain staunchly anti-education and staunchly pro-indoctrination – and therefore have had no one on the farm team to nominate.

  • colnago80

    Re Michael Heath @ #33

    It is my information that there are 6 Roman Catholics on the court.

  • U Frood

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    -Romans 13:1

    There you go, all authorities already come from God, so there’s no need to pray to let God take over the government. Quit wasting His time with prayers for things he’s already granted.

  • http://changerofbits.blogspot.com/ changerofbits

    I’m glad they think prayer is one of the productive ways to achieve their ends. Do you think we could get PZ to write a “The Onion” style article that supported prayer scientifically? Something like: “I’m still an avowed atheist, but the science facts showing prayer works can’t be denied. Our dear atheist leaders need to establish official atheist prayers, and fast.” Then we spread it around and their confirmation bias would trigger them into longer prayers with more people, time spent not actually gaining any of the power they seek.

    If it weren’t for all of the tangible harm they would bring, I sort of wish they would succeed, just to watch the ensuing chaos that writing the “Jesus,YHWH,Allah God Amendment” would entail.

  • howardhershey

    By the latest count, the members of the ruling party in both House and Senate includes no acknowledged atheists, one Jew, no muslims, no buddhists, and 14 mormons. If you count mormons as close to Christian, non-Christians count as 1/301 of the ruling party in the U.S. What do they want? 0/301? No mormons?

  • busterggi

    Sounds like the typical rant you’d hear from ISIS or the Taliban – no Abrahamic religion is any different than another at its core.

  • grumpyoldfart

    I’d like to see a satirist sneak into a Christian prayer fest and start calling for the most outrageous laws with the most awful punishments for the most trivial crimes and see how long it takes before the crowd stops cheering.

  • U Frood

    Like maybe suggest the actual punishments demanded in the Bible?

  • eric

    Heddle:

    And I have, in public, both at secular gatherings and in conservative churches, referred to the dominionist position as anti-Christian. I did not, however, say that they were not Christians. My circle of orthodoxy is pretty damn big. I do not consider dominionism to be blasphemous, just very wrong.

    I get it. Likewise, you are a scientist with many anti-science ideas. I don’t consider a belief in unevidenced entities and adherence to divine revelation as a methodolgy to knock you out of the profession, its just very wrong.

    Is that a fair comparison?

  • whheydt

    And in other Southern news… Our old buddy Roy Moore appears to be trying to get kicked off the Alabama State Supreme Court again. This time he is asserting religious backing for the state marriage laws and urging the governor to resist the actions of a District Federal Judge striking down the Alabama anti-SSM laws.

    Not only has Moore put his foot in it (possibly over his head), but he seems to be trying for removal for violating a Federal Court order…again.

    Apparently, he *still* has no understanding of the Supremacy Clause.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Synfandel @ # 15: What are these “seven mountains of influence”?

    abb3w gave the short answer @ # 15 – for more, consult talk2action.org’s “Resource Directory for the New Apostolic Reformation”.

  • weatherwax

    #12 Raven: “Hitchen’s Rule: Xianity lost its best argument when it lost the power of the gun, noose, and stack of firewood. And they are well aware of it.”

    There was an Australian animated movie about Grendel and Beowulf. One of Beowulf’s lines was “Heresy is defined by which end of the sword you’re on”.

  • davek23

    all areas of culture “belong to God.”

    Ah yes, the old “X belongs to God… but He’s not here right now, so I’ll just take care of it for him” ploy.

  • sailor1031

    These folks are definitely anti-american in that they wish to establish a theocracy here – as some fundamentalist islamists do. Who’ll get there first I wonder?

    They are also anti-christian in that, for example, the holding of such a public prayer event is clear disobedience of Yeshue bar Yussef’s instructions to his followers contained in Matthew 6:1 – 34.

  • caseloweraz

    “Father, we cry out for the seven mountains of influence today,” Mills said.

    Is he calling for a return of the Roman Empire?

  • caseloweraz

    abb3w (quoting): These seven mountains are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion.

    Ah, thank you. I would call it eight, thinking that arts and entertainment are not so much of a single thing. But that’s my definition, not theirs.

  • bryanfeir

    Ah, thank you. I would call it eight, thinking that arts and entertainment are not so much of a single thing. But that’s my definition, not theirs.

    Well, they were probably going for the ‘seven hills of Rome’ reference anyway… seven is a magical number. At least in European thinking; eight is lucky in Chinese thinking, I believe, but I rather doubt these people know that.

    The New Apostolic Reformation crowd are rather… focused in their mythology, even as they layer their own rather non-traditional mythology on top of the older Christian mythology.

    It’s long been my perspective, and perhaps you share it, that these politically active conservative Christians are far more motivated by politics than their religious beliefs.

    Fred Clark has long been rather loudly agreeing with that.