Lots more on dominion theology

Jim Burroway: “Christian Dominionism Is Not a Myth

These are not the people within the broad spectrum of Christianity, nor are they even those within the outer 10 percent of its fringes. We’re not talking about the Pat Robertsons, the Joel Osteens, the Albert Mohlers or the Rick Warrens. No, we’re talking about people who are far, far more fringe than anyone whose name immediately comes to mind whenever most people think of Christian evangelicalism. … When [Michelle] Goldberg says, “If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding dominionism isn’t optional,” that advice applies to mainstream evangelicals as well. I suspect most of them don’t understand dominionism either. …

Pretending that the so-called New Apostolic Movement and Seven Mountains Theology don’t exist or that those influenced by the Kansas City Prophets have not gained influence among particular presidential candidates here at home and political leaders abroad doesn’t make them go away. … And when they are identified as close advisers credited for a big win in Iowa, or when they act as main speakers and moderators at a huge televised rally for a candidate’s benefit, the proper response is to ask hard questions of what they want for the country, not whistling and quickly walking away.

See also Burroway’s “Dominionism Is Not a Myth (Cont’d.)

Warren Throckmorton asks, “What Would Dominionists Do With Gays?

The answer to that question, Throckmorton suggests, can be learned from observing what American dominionist groups have been pushing for in Uganda, where for years now they have promoted a bill making homosexuality a capital crime.

In late 2009, I noted that the Seven Mountains teachings had adherents among those in Uganda who were strongly pushing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill there. If passed as is, the AHB will make homosexuality a capital offense.  Because of his association with AHB promoter in Uganda, Apostle Julius Oyet, and his teaching on reclaiming the Seven Mountains of culture, I asked Atlanta pastor, Johnny Enlow, what he thought about laws criminalizing homosexuality.  Enlow’s reply leaves room for criminalization but stops short of calling for the death penalty. …

Jason Pitzl-Waters: “Just Because You’re Paranoid, Don’t Mean They’re Not After You

If a politician builds up a proven track record of hostility towards non-Christian faiths, or associates without qualm with those who do, as I believe Michele Bachmann has, then there is great risk in allowing these figures to lead a secular multi-religious nation.

These debates over how much influence figures from various extremist Christian groups truly have isn’t simply an academic matter for those who don’t benefit from Christian privilege. Even if someone like Rick Perry isn’t a true believer and is cynically hitching his wagon to the horses he thinks will help win him the race, the tide of an elected president raises all boats, and we would see figures who believe that Pagans are demonically controlled suddenly granted new levels of access to power. That’s scary, because as the recently-released West Memphis 3 can tell you, Satanic panics are nothing to laugh off.

Brian Tashman: “If Dominionism Is a Liberal Conspiracy, Why Does It Have Conservative Critics?

Matt Barber of Liberty University School of Law called [dominion theology] a “scary Christian monster that lives under liberals’ beds,” despite the fact the Liberty University School of Law sponsored [Theonomist Gary] DeMar’s conference last year, called “2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference — Biblical Blueprints for Victory!”

In fact, the Communications Director of Truth In Action Ministries, which until recently was called Coral Ridge Ministries, claimed that “dominionism is a sham charge-one reserved for Christians on the right,” even though prominent dominionist Janet Porter was once the head of a Coral Ridge Ministries affiliate.

So if domininionism doesn’t exist and is merely a construct of the left, then why was Porter fired by two conservative Christian radio stations for promoting … “dominionism”?

Those conservative critics include far-right factions like Brannon Howse’s Worldview Weekend network, self-appointed heresy hunters and anti-“cult” groups (pretty much any organization with “discernment” in the name) and premillennial dispensationalists appalled by the dominionists postmillennial beliefs. Criticism of dominion theology by such groups goes back years before there was any such thing as a liberal blogger.

Religion Dispatches: “Beyond Alarmism and Denial in the Dominionism Debate

Sarah Posner and Anthea Butler discuss “Ricky Perry, the New Apostolic Reformation, and the recent brouhaha in the press about how much importance to accord to right-wing religion.” This is from Butler:

The NAR isn’t in a vacuum and more powerful than other movements, but it should not be dismissed either. I am more than annoyed with articles by Lisa Miller, Ralph Reed, Charlotte Adams and others attempting to blow off dominionists or NAR just because they don’t think it exists. … Yes, not every conservative Christian is a Dominionist, but to say a movement doesn’t exist, without even being able to say what it is in an op-ed is just irresponsible.

Greg Metzger: “Evangelicals have a Perry/Bachmann problem

What I believe has happened … is that evangelicals have gravitated to the worst aspects of the secular articles — namely, the underlying fear of any type of religious presence in the public arena and the ignorance of the complexity and diversity of evangelicalism — to dramatically underplay the legitimate concerns over Perry’s and Bachmann’s religio-political vision. The Christian writers I mentioned … are either focusing too narrowly on specific errors in the secular media (Groothius, Allen do this I believe) or too broadly on the question of religion and public life (Miller, Gerson and McKnight do this). What they are missing is the mountain of serious scholarship and thoughtful writing that is the foundation of genuine concerns over the types of ideas and spiritualities that have had, according to Bachmann and Perry themselves, a significant influence on them and their staff.

See also Greg Metzger’s “More of the Same?

An Urgent Message from C. Peter Wagner

Wagner is the “apostolic ambassador” of the New Apostolic Reformation, the group at the center of what I’ve described as “the creepy Pentecostal wing of dominion theology.” This “urgent message” here is his response to the public regarding recent criticism and concerns about his group and its ties to candidates Bachmann and Perry.

Wagner explains what he means by “dominionism” — a word he’s quite comfortable using to describe himself, despite the assertion by several recent writers that no one uses this word except paranoid liberal bloggers.

Wagner also claims, contra Joe Carter, et. al., that he actually does exist. I’m prepared to accept his word on that, if not to trust much else of what he has to say in his “urgent message.”

Chip Berlet: “Straw Jeremiads and Apologists for Christian Nationalism

Berlet surveys a spate of recent op-ed columns denying the existence or the significance of dominion theology and responds to their arguments.

That was in 2007. Talk to Action just reposted Berlet’s piece because the same exact thing is happening again. The very same dominionism-denying columns are being written, again, and sometimes by the very same people. Some of the people today claiming that they’ve never even heard of dominionism until recently were claiming the same thing in 2007.

This was not an accurate claim then. It is not an honest claim now.

Frank Schaeffer: “Michelle Bachmann Was Inspired by My Dad and His Christian Reconstructionist Friends

Most Americans have never heard of the Reconstructionists. But they have felt their impact through the Reconstructionists’ profound (if indirect) influence over the wider (and vast) evangelical community.

Take Michele Bachmann. She is a Reconstructionist schooled – literally – by some of that obscure movement’s leading thinkers, including my father.

The evangelicals have shaped the politics of a secular culture that barely understood the religious right, let alone the forces within that movement that gave it its edge. The Americans inhabiting the wider (and more secular) culture just saw the results of Reconstructionism without understanding where those results had come from—for instance, how the hell George W. Bush got elected and then reelected or why Michele Bachmann was into home schooling long before she was into trying to become president in order to turn America into a homophobic theocracy. …

The Reconstructionists have been like a drop of radicalizing flavoring added to a bottle of water: They’ve subtly changed the water’s flavor. And even though most evangelicals, let alone the general public, don’t know the names of the leading Reconstructionist thinkers, the world we live in—where a radicalized, angry government-hating religious right has changed the face of American politics and spun off into movements such as the Tea Party—is a direct result of that “flavoring.” …

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

And many times confused
The unjust piety of 'safe evangelical environments,' from Oney Judge to Larycia Hawkins
Christian colleges and 'Christian' nationalism (part 2)
Christian colleges and 'Christian' nationalism
  • Rikalous

    That Uganda thing sounds pretty scary, but don’t worry! Bachmann never said anything about wanting to kill QUILTBAGs, she just thinks it’s “sexual dysfunction” and ”
    Personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” So it’s all good.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Hang on. American Christians are trying to use political pressure to murder Ugandans?

  • Tom S

    Utterly crazy further right than the crazy right wing Christians, mind you. I would like to think- and hope and pray- that it’s something that horrifies most Christians, including the ones whose beliefs I think are a travesty of Christianity in other respects.

  • Anonymous

    Hang on. American Christians respond to the murder of Ugandans with anything other than outright condemnation?

    American Christians caused the (proposed) murder of Ugandans. It wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for American Christians. Back in 2009 three American Christians, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, Holocaust revisionist and head of three separate SLP designated hate groups Scott Lively, and ex-gay “counselor” Caleb Brundidge, all went to Uganda to hold an “educational conference.” Over the course of the conference they inundated the participants with a morass of lies, ones ranging from ex-gay ministry is in any way effective to that homosexuals were responsible for the holocaust, to homosexuals were responsible for the Rwandan genocide, to gays are pedophiles. In the end it called for mandatory conversion therapy for all gay people in the nation.

    This conference by three American Christians led to an anti-gay vigilante campaign in Uganda, which in turn led to the government starting to take “stern” action against gay people (which considering it was already illegal, is something). It eventually coalesced into a bill which proscribed the death penalty, not only for gay people, but for anyone who knew the person was gay and didn’t immediately alert the authorities.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    prescribed, please.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chandra-Vargas/617581266 Chandra Vargas

    Don’t Peter Waldren- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/bachmann-staffer-arrested-for-terrorism-in-uganda-in-2006/243711/

  • Bificommander

    IIRC some responded with condemnation of the American who responded with condemnation.

  • http://twitter.com/Rhysdux Rhysdux

    Bachman, Perry, Focus on the Family, Love In Action, all the ultrazealous Christian neocons–they all scare the shit out of me, because they come across as willfully ignorant, anti-education, anti-woman, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, anti-Constitution, anti-EVERYTHING. And they’re utterly determined to bring about their hellish version of paradise on earth.

    Can anyone explain why anyone would WANT to be a Dominionist? Keep in mind that I don’t even get the appeal of believing in conventional Christianity, so the prospect of living in an ultraconservative theocracy is the sort of thing that has me looking up countries to flee to in case of emergency. (I’m a woman, I’m poor, I’m disabled, and I’m an atheist.  Agnostic on my more optimistic days, which are becoming rarer. I KNOW that the theocrats don’t like people like me.) 

    So I ask again–what is the appeal of this anti-everything, we-hate-everybody, let’s-take-The Handmaid’s Tale-as-an-instruction-manual message? Because it seems to appeal to a disturbing number of people….even though it bears no resemblance to Christianity as I know it.

  • Archer

    They believe it’s God’s will, and that God’s will involves a society where the people in charge all look and think exactly like they do, where the people they hate and fear are punished, and they never have to confront anything that tempts them or makes them doubt. Convenient, that.

  • http://www.nightphoenix.com Amaranth

    “They believe it’s God’s will, and that God’s will involves a society
    where the people in charge all look and think exactly like they do,
    where the people they hate and fear are punished, and they never have to
    confront anything that tempts them or makes them doubt.”

    It’s actually worse than that. They believe it’s God’s will, and furthermore, they believe that if they don’t see to it that “God’s will” is imposed upon an entire nation (all members willing or not), that God will punish the entire nation for said “transgressions”. They get the notion from the Old Testament, where God frequently visited horrors upon entire nations because he didn’t like what some people were doing. One anti-abortionist said flat out (only slightly paraphrased), “We have to make abortion illegal, because if we allow it, those innocents’ blood is on ALL our hands and God will make America pay”.

    In other words, there are some people who sincerely believe that God will punish them for not making other people “behave”.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Amaranth:

    Ugh, they want entire countries held hostage to their fears? (>_<)

  • Anonymous

    In other words, there are some people who sincerely believe that God will punish them for not making other people “behave”.

    With the callous irony being, if they manage to create their ‘perfect america’ – it will crash in so many ways. Ergo, God will punish it – to their mind. It’ll all come out as “We did not act fast enough, or completley enough, or showed too much mercy – so see? – the punishment is at hand!”

    I mean seriously, the influences are already damaging America, economically and democratically.

    Tragic.

  • http://twitter.com/Rhysdux Rhysdux

    They get the notion from the Old Testament, where God frequently visited horrors upon entire nations because he didn’t like what some people were doing.

    But those are just STORIES. Fairy tales.  The interpretation of a frequently conquered tribe, explaining disasters in a context that they could understand.  I mean, I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused Hurricane Irene because His Noodleness is offended by the existence of Gorton’s Fish Sticks. But that wouldn’t make it true.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I mean, I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused Hurricane Irene because His Noodleness is offended by the existence of Gorton’s Fish Sticks. But that wouldn’t make it true.

    And yet they would trash such an assertion as mockery of their beliefs, rather than mockery of arguments from authority.  

    Of course, when their beliefs are based entirely around arguments from authority…

  • Joshua

     the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused Hurricane Irene because His Noodleness is offended by the existence of Gorton’s Fish Sticks.

    Look, look, look, surely noodles and fish sticks can peacefully co-exist together? On one plate with peace and harmony and spicy plum sauce?

  • Anonymous

    So I ask again–what is the appeal of this anti-everything, we-hate-everybody, let’s-take-The Handmaid’s Tale-as-an-instruction-manual message? Because it seems to appeal to a disturbing number of people….even though it bears no resemblance to Christianity as I know it.

    Ever been frustrated by uncertainty as to what the right thing to do is? Ever wished when faced with a hard choice that someone would just take it out of your hands? Ever been jealous when someone else shows themselves to be better at making those kind of decisions, or embarrassed when they’ve shown how you made the wrong choice?
    Well absolutist ideologies allow you short circuit the whole process. What’s the right thing to do? Well here’s a handy list, anyone who disagrees is either pathetically ignorant of the truth, or if you’ve told them the answer and they still disagree they’re dangerously malicious. And you get all of this without ever having to struggle for the right answer again, you’ll always be right, they’ll always be wrong. Culpably wrong, you don’t even have to feel bad about it.

    Poisonous but seductive, especially to those who’ve been oppressed and desperately long for justice but mistake it for revenge.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You know, I was thinking about that Rushdoony fella and I remember vagely hearing about him in the 1980s and 1990s.

  • Launcifer

    Yes, but the odd thing is that it’s not those people, so much, who interest me. It’s the people standing behind those people, who may or may not actualy believe any of that themselves, but who have come to the conclusion that’s it’s a useful cloaking device under which they can make a power grab.

    I’m sure there are a great many people operating out of a sense of fear of what is, to them, unknown, but I’m not sure that most of them are the ones ultimately pulling the strings here.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    The answer to that question, Throckmorton suggests, can be learned from observing what American dominionist groups have been pushing for in Uganda, where for years now they have promoted a bill making homosexuality a capital crime.

    I have wanted to travel to Uganda and take on the role of a bodyguard for homosexuals there.  I could say that it is because I do not want to see innocent people hurt, and that is true, but if I am being honest with myself it is primarily because I want to make bigoted people pay a cost for expressing their hate.  If they wish to commit assault, then they must accept that they are risking their life and limb in doing so.  I must make them ask, “How much is my hate worth?”  If their hate is not worth dying for, then they better stand down.  On the other hand, if their hate is worth dying for, well, personal responsibility for their choices and all that…

    The evangelicals have shaped the politics of a secular culture that barely understood the religious right, let alone the forces within that movement that gave it its edge. The Americans inhabiting the wider (and more secular) culture just saw the results of Reconstructionism without understanding where those results had come from—for instance, how the hell George W. Bush got elected and then reelected or why Michele Bachmann was into home schooling long before she was into trying to become president in order to turn America into a homophobic theocracy. …

    The 2000 presidential election was the first election in which I voted.  I thought that Gore was a shoe-in for it.  He had White House experience during a popular (if somewhat soap-opera like) administration, and he had a stoic and analytical demeanor which spoke of professionalism.  Bush on the other hand seemed less like a president and more like a drinking buddy, who let his faith get in the way of his judgement.  Sure, his bumbling malapropisms might be fun at parties, but not the kind of thing we would need of a public speaker who is expected to regularly address the nation.  

    The fact that Bush got elected took me by surprise, but I just assumed that people were kind of apathetic after Clinton, and thus people were being less tactical with their votes, making protest votes for third party candidates and such.  When he was elected, I figured that we would have four years of the Bush administration making messes and blunders, then the White House would change parties and we would cluck our tongues as we fix everything again.  Then 9/11 happened.  

    What was even more surprising to me is that Bush got re-elected.  After beginning an optional war which was unpopular before it started, how could anyone vote for him again?  It was my father who realized, after the fact, that it was because there were places in the country where preachers held enormous influential power over the population in their local area, and they were telling their congregations to vote for Bush as it was essential to have a “good Christian” in the White House.  

    And to them, being a “good Christian” outweighed all other concerns, and was sufficient qualification in itself.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The fact that Bush got elected took me by surprise,

    More like selected, actually,

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Remember, it’s only vote fraud if anyone actually gets arrested.

    :-P

  • Anonymous

    What was even more surprising to me is that Bush got re-elected.  After beginning an optional war which was unpopular before it started, how could anyone vote for him again?

    If the Democrats had wanted to claim the anti-war vote, they should should have nominated a candidate who had unequivocally opposed the war from the start.

    While the question of how anyone could vote for Bush again doesn’t specifically apply to me, I will note that I voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. [aunursa ducks and prepares for onslaught]

  • Daughter

    So I ask again–what is the appeal of this anti-everything, we-hate-everybody, let’s-take-The Handmaid’s Tale-as-an-instruction-manual message?

    Rhysdux, I think this is the appeal (from the Peter Wagner linked article in Fred’s post):

    Think of heaven: no injustice, no poverty, righteousness, peace, prosperity, no disease, love, no corruption, no crime, no misery, no racism, and I could go on. Wouldn’t you like your city to display those characteristics?

    For a lot of Christians, that is a very appealing vision.  If the dominionists are telling other evangelicals that they can make this happen, without going into detail about what their vision will actually mean in practice (eliminating women’s rights, implementation of Old Testament law including capital punishment for adulty, homosexuality, blashpemy, etc., and so on), then I can easily see many evangelicas being taken in.

  • http://twitter.com/Rhysdux Rhysdux

    Think of heaven: no injustice, no poverty, righteousness, peace, prosperity, no disease, love, no corruption, no crime, no misery, no racism, and I could go on. Wouldn’t you like your city to display those characteristics?

    Daughter:  Of course I would like my town to be perfect. But that’s not going to happen, because people live in my town. People are people and not gods. And where there are people, there is going to be injustice, poverty, unrighteousness, strife, sickness, hate, corruption, crime and misery. I do think that we can reduce the amount of these things significantly by seeking realistic rather than pious solutions, but I don’t think that we can wipe them altogether. And we certainly can’t do it by implementing Old Testament law, which doesn’t work very well in a modern context. (How many burnt offerings to God have YOU offered up today?)  I don’t happen to like having to cope with disability, for example, but if I refuse to treat my current health problems in favor of planning for a future of perfect wellness–which is not going to happen–I won’t be doing myself any favors.

    I don’t see why anyone would be taken in by such…such drivel.

    I guess I don’t deal very well with people who not only want heaven on earth, but who feel aggrieved that it hasn’t arrived yet. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    We need to make that heaven on Earth, not by our faith, but by our works. It won’t happen until all human beings see each other as good neighbors, as opposed to unwanted enemies. When we can make this world so all of us can live comforably without
    fear of pain and disease, then we shall have made heaven with our own
    hands.

    It won’t happen until we see every person on this world as part of the same community. Paraphrased: “we breathe the same air; we drink the same water.”

    The PMD and Dominionist insistence that the blessing of God is needed before they dare even start on the project actively hampers those who would rather not wait for permission.

  • http://dcmoosings.blogspot.com LouC

    Not only that, but they believe the US was established as a Christian nation and the statements such as “there shall be no religious test for high office” means no religious test of Christians. We had a Utah state senator at a meeting I attended actually defend this viewpoint. Of course, whether Dominionists believe Mormons are Christians may be another story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonathan-Pelikan/100000903137143 Jonathan Pelikan

    I don’t have words to describe how I’m feeling now. The very idea that this is at the beating core of evangelical Christianity, which is, in turn, functioning as the beating core of one of the two largest political parties in one of the most prominent nations on the face of the Earth… fuck.

    Vote for Obama in 2012, please, everybody. Unless you particularly like the alternative, that is, evil, then it doesn’t matter how angry you are at him or how much you disagree with his policies. When your choices are ‘…. eh.’ and ‘how can these people exist’ then there’s only one choice.

  • Anonymous

    Except… it isn’t.  Even most evangelical Christian believers consider the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven being established by mere mortals to be heretical.  Most evangelicals would be more comfortable with theocracy, but they aren’t pursuing it.  I would not call the dominionists ‘the beating core of evangelical Christianity.’

    I WOULD, on the other hand, call them a well-connected and growing fringe who should be opposed, and have influence far out of proportion to their numbers.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Most evangelicals would be more comfortable with theocracy

    Ah, citation please.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, good catch and bad on my part.  I retract that.  It was my impression that the hard-line religious, right-wing authoritarians would be comfortable with the idea of a theocracy, but you’re right; I do not have a citation so I can’t properly say that. Thanks!

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    My point was more that “evangelicals” =/= hard line right wing authoritarian. I’m sure that lots of self-identified evangelicals might think that they’d like a theocracy, but most? I doubt it.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, good catch and bad on my part.  I retract that.  It was my impression that the hard-line religious, right-wing authoritarians would be comfortable with the idea of a theocracy, but you’re right; I do not have a citation so I can’t properly say that. Thanks!

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Vote for Obama in 2012, please, everybody. Unless you particularly like the alternative, that is, evil, then it doesn’t matter how angry you are at him or how much you disagree with his policies. When your choices are ‘…. eh.’ and ‘how can these people exist’ then there’s only one choice.

    I don’t disagree with you even slightly, but it really aggravates me that the Democrats can get away with treating the Actual Liberals as what is called in the trade a “fuck-you constituency”.  (As in, we vote for them, they say “fuck you” to us.)

    But yeah, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.  Not these days.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I don’t disagree with you even slightly, but it really aggravates me that the Democrats can get away with treating the Actual Liberals as what is called in the trade a “fuck-you constituency”. (As in, we vote for them, they say “fuck you” to us.)

    I think that we can take some solace in the fact that the right wing also has its own “fuck-you constituency”, made up primarily of the various religious voters whom it tries to court.  Things like abortion and gay marriage are great issues for Republician politicians to drum up votes, and they do not even have to promise to necessarily outlaw those things, just promise not to support those things unlike a Democratic politician.  If they actually did get those things outlawed, they would lose a lot of leverage with their voters who would, having seen their political goals accomplished, no longer need to keep electing those politicians. 

    As I understand it, a big part of the core of the Teacoats were drawn from the Republician’s “fuck-you constituency” who were tired of voting for Republician candidates who were insufficiently conservative for their tastes.  And thus through their noise machine they attempt to shift the overton window further rightward. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Vote for Obama in 2012, please, everybody. Unless you particularly like the alternative, that is, evil, then it doesn’t matter how angry you are at him or how much you disagree with his policies. When your choices are ‘…. eh.’ and ‘how can these people exist’ then there’s only one choice.

    I don’t disagree with you even slightly, but it really aggravates me that the Democrats can get away with treating the Actual Liberals as what is called in the trade a “fuck-you constituency”.  (As in, we vote for them, they say “fuck you” to us.)

    But yeah, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.  Not these days.

  • WingedBeast

    From where I stand, Dominionism seems less a movement and more an attitude.  That attitude being “Non Christians?  Oh, are they people?”.  Seen from that angle, a lot of your most avid Christians are exactly that.  Not just the people who outright say “The First Amendment was never intended to apply to Non-Christians.”  But, also the people who say “America is a Christian Nation” or “Abortion should be illegal because God says thou shalt not kill.”

    More of American Christendom in general is this kind of Dominionist than is comfortable to admit to.  It’s just that so many of them haven’t thought through where they are to call it that.

  • Daughter

    WingedBeast, I agree.  Teresamerica on the Michele Bachmann thread proves your point:

    Okay, if dominionism means spreading morality and Christ’s Teachings I fess up…. I’m all for Dominionism.

  • WingedBeast

    To that, I can only respond “define morality… specifically how much does morality require you to hate people categorically?”

  • Daughter

    WingedBeast, I agree.  Teresamerica on the Michele Bachmann thread proves your point:

    Okay, if dominionism means spreading morality and Christ’s Teachings I fess up…. I’m all for Dominionism.

  • Daughter

    This is from the Burroway article:

    “They teach quite literally that these ‘mountains’ have fallen under the control of demonic influences in society,” says Tabachnick. “And therefore, they must reclaim them for God in order to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth. … The apostles teach what’s called ‘strategic level spiritual warfare’ [because they believe that the] reason why there is sin and corruption and poverty on the Earth is because the Earth is controlled by a hierarchy of demons under the authority of Satan. So they teach not just evangelizing souls one by one, as we’re accustomed to hearing about. They teach that they will go into a geographic region or a people group and conduct spiritual-warfare activities in order to remove the demons from the entire population. This is what they’re doing that’s quite fundamentally different than other evangelical groups.”

    But many evangelicals may not realize this.  They hear the watered-down “public face” of dominionism and think, like Teresamerica, “Well, they’re promoting my values, so I’m all for it.”

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Hey, if they want to play their Soldier Of The Lord LARP, that’s fine by me.  It’s when they try to take over the government that I get nervous.

  • Daughter

    A quote from Gary North or Rushdoony from another article (linked to one of Fred’s links):

    “So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort.”

    I was really into Frank Perretti’s novels back in the late ’80s-early ’90s.  One of them, Piercing the Darkness, took the exact flip idea in this quote as an accusation against “secularists.” The story is about a lawsuit against a Christian school, ostensibly led by New Agers angry at discrimination against the daughter of a New Ager who attended the school. However, behind the somewhat duped New Agers are a shadowy, powerful group of secularists who are controlled by demons.  Their purpose is to: “[destroy the] independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a [secular] social, political, and religious order which finally [destroys] the religious liberty of the enemies of [secularism].”It makes me wonder how influenced Peretti might have been by dominionism (by whatever name) and if he wrote the book as finger-pointing projectionism.

  • Daughter

    A quote from Gary North or Rushdoony from another article (linked to one of Fred’s links):

    “So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort.”

    I was really into Frank Perretti’s novels back in the late ’80s-early ’90s.  One of them, Piercing the Darkness, took the exact flip idea in this quote as an accusation against “secularists.” The story is about a lawsuit against a Christian school, ostensibly led by New Agers angry at discrimination against the daughter of a New Ager who attended the school. However, behind the somewhat duped New Agers are a shadowy, powerful group of secularists who are controlled by demons.  Their purpose is to: “[destroy the] independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a [secular] social, political, and religious order which finally [destroys] the religious liberty of the enemies of [secularism].”It makes me wonder how influenced Peretti might have been by dominionism (by whatever name) and if he wrote the book as finger-pointing projectionism.

  • Daughter

    And now that I think of it, I wonder if Peretti has influenced modern politics in the way that L&J have.  I don’t think his books sold quite as many copies, but he’s a somewhat better writer and knows how to create more sympathetic protagonists than L&J, so his stories might be more effective.  I suspect that through his novels he introduced many mainstream evangelicals to the concepts of “spiritual warfare” and of demon strongholds over cities and nations.

  • Daughter

    And now that I think of it, I wonder if Peretti has influenced modern politics in the way that L&J have.  I don’t think his books sold quite as many copies, but he’s a somewhat better writer and knows how to create more sympathetic protagonists than L&J, so his stories might be more effective.  I suspect that through his novels he introduced many mainstream evangelicals to the concepts of “spiritual warfare” and of demon strongholds over cities and nations.

  • Daughter

    Ding, ding, ding!  Peretti’s Wikipedia biography says this:

    His concept of Territorial Spirits reigning over cities is paralleled in non-fiction works in theology and missions by Pentecostal writers such as C. Peter Wagner, Larry Lea, Ed Silvoso and Ed Murphy.

    And who is C. Peter Wagner? None other than the founder of the New Apostolic Reformation–the Pentecostal wing of dominionism.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And who is C. Peter Wagner? None other than the founder of the New
    Apostolic Reformation–the Pentecostal wing of dominionism.

    I’ll be dipped. O_O

  • Daughter
  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ew, no.

    And both noodles and fish sticks kinda ick me right now.

  • Joshua

    Well, there are things I’d rather cook, but if that’s all that is in the freezer, it could be a perfectly edible meal.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Okay, so what can we do about these theocratic dingbats, aside from holding our noses to vote for the less-noxious candidates?

  • Matri

    Okay, so what can we do about these theocratic dingbats, aside from
    holding our noses to vote for the less-noxious candidates?

    I fear there isn’t much, if any, that we can do.

    If we oppose them, it will (in their minds) reaffirm to them that they are doing The Right Thing(tm).
    If we call them out on it, it will (in their minds) reaffirm to them that they are doing The Right Thing(tm).
    If we try to patiently explain things to them, it will (in their minds) reaffirm to them that they are doing The Right Thing(tm).
    If we do nothing about them, it will (in their minds) reaffirm to them that they are doing The Right Thing(tm).

    tl;dr version: They’ll screw you no matter what.

  • Corbie

    Who the heck cares what they think?  They’ll feel persecuted regardless.
    What we have to do is organize and oppose them, and let the majority of people who really dislike religious extremists know what they’re up to.
    For instance: I’ve been talking with a friend on the commuter bus — he’s fairly conservative, and vaguely religious (believes there might be some higher power but doesn’t go to church and really doesn’t trust organized religion or preachers).  Gave him a few keywords to Google (Dominionism, Rushdoony, etc.) the last time I saw him.  Hope he does…  He’d never heard of Dominionism, but he didn’t like what I told him.
    As to the organizing part, I’m still trying to work that one out for myself.  Any ideas?

  • Tonio

    Remember Richard Pryor’s observation on the all-white casts of ’70s science fiction movies? He suggested that whites weren’t planning on non-whites being around in the future. Listening to Perry and Bachmann, I get the impression that they’re not planninig on non-Christians being around in the US. At least, the idea of the US citizenry being made up of many different religions is incomprehensible to them.

    What exactly are the “public arena” and “public life”? The religious right seem to use these terms so broadly as to be meaningless.

  • WingedBeast

    In political terms, public means under the auspices of government (which is controlled and run by the public at large, politicians being their employees.)  Which is why public displays of religion, in that sense, would be unconstitutionals as they would favor one religion over others.

    In political terms, private means in the realm of the individual and/or group of individuals.  Meaning only that individual or the members of that group are involved.  Therefore, they’re free to endorse their faith to their heart’s content.  Hense, why nobody’s up in arms about prayer in private schools, only public ones.

    In the more general term public and private refer to what the public at large has access to.  So, if a private person were to pray out loud in his front yard on a busy street, in that sense he would be praying in public.  In the political sense, he would be praying privately.

    It’s a lot like what Bush kept saying in defense of the war in Iraq.  “They attacked us on 9/11.  We had to defend ourselves from them.”  It was a cunning use of linguistic ambiguity.  “they” could mean many things.  You don’t have to mean the wrong thing with “they”, but that’s what they’ll hear.  Similarly, if people are up in arms about public prayer being restricted… well, you don’t have to mean that it’s not really about private people’s right to pray in a public setting, but that’s what they’ll hear.

  • WingedBeast

    In political terms, public means under the auspices of government (which is controlled and run by the public at large, politicians being their employees.)  Which is why public displays of religion, in that sense, would be unconstitutionals as they would favor one religion over others.

    In political terms, private means in the realm of the individual and/or group of individuals.  Meaning only that individual or the members of that group are involved.  Therefore, they’re free to endorse their faith to their heart’s content.  Hense, why nobody’s up in arms about prayer in private schools, only public ones.

    In the more general term public and private refer to what the public at large has access to.  So, if a private person were to pray out loud in his front yard on a busy street, in that sense he would be praying in public.  In the political sense, he would be praying privately.

    It’s a lot like what Bush kept saying in defense of the war in Iraq.  “They attacked us on 9/11.  We had to defend ourselves from them.”  It was a cunning use of linguistic ambiguity.  “they” could mean many things.  You don’t have to mean the wrong thing with “they”, but that’s what they’ll hear.  Similarly, if people are up in arms about public prayer being restricted… well, you don’t have to mean that it’s not really about private people’s right to pray in a public setting, but that’s what they’ll hear.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, and Fearless, I’ve often thought things like that myself.  If people like Blackwater are allowed to form up PMCs and muck about, then surely the ‘good guys’ could do it.  Contract out to threatened and otherwise ‘oppressed’ groups for low prices/loans.  Perhaps wrap it up in a wider support network, using the donations to fund both actual charity work and… other activities.  Sorta like the terrorist groups do, but not actually evil.
    You’d need a lot of money and skill to get it off the ground, which I don’t have, and it’s probably illegal (or would swiftly become so) and certainly extremely dangerous.  And that’s without even getting into the serious ethical concerns…

  • Papa

    You’re nearly all sadly misinformed and so worldly you cannot even understand what a TRUE Christian is.

  • Rikalous

    You’re nearly all sadly misinformed and so worldly you cannot even understand what a TRUE Christian is.

    Yeah? Then do inform us. What is a [Real] TRUE Christian?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    You’re nearly all sadly misinformed and so worldly you cannot even understand what a TRUE Christian is.

    Seconding @155f26d41c73b81b184e05dc8c643425:disqus : please tell! If I’ve been doing it wrong all this time I’d like to be set on the right path. Share your wisdom Papa*.

    *Are you the Pope, or a potato?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    *Are you the Pope, or a potato?

    He might not be a Pope yet, but now YOU are.

    He might be a cabbage, though.

  • Papa

    You’re nearly all sadly misinformed and so worldly you cannot even understand what a TRUE Christian is.

  • Anonymous

    There are no churches that call themselves dominionist or preachers who claim to promote it. The term also displays shocking ignorance of the Biblical text, as dominion in Genesis was granted over animals, not other people. It reeks of faux theological illiteracy. 

  • Rikalous

    There are no churches that call themselves dominionist or preachers who claim to promote it.

    You can call it Dominion theology or Kingdom theology if you want. A rose by any other name and all that. C. Peter Wagner uses those terms in this book:
    http://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Kingdom-Action-Change-World/dp/B002U0KRGK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315356947&sr=8-1

    It’s got a chapter all about how Christians need to go to war (for a good cause, of course). Seriously.

    The term also displays shocking ignorance of the Biblical text, as
    dominion in Genesis was granted over animals, not other people. It reeks
    of faux theological illiteracy.

    It appears that some translations say they were given dominion over “every living thing that moves on the earth” or some similar wording. That could be construed to extend to nonChristians. Wait, why am I arguing on the side of the whackaloons?