‘I want to follow a leader … I want to follow …’

October 26, 2011 By Fred Clark

I apologize for showing you this, but I do not have the words to describe it, to capture the experience of seeing and hearing it for yourself, or to convey the many levels and layers and meaning going on here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5CuoDpJNDs

Again, I apologize for showing you that.

I wanted to say something more about that song’s insistence on religious tests for public office and its expression of an earnest desire for an authoritarian power to tell us what to do, and to talk about how those aren’t really compatible with being a citizen in a pluralistic democracy with the rule of law, but I’m afraid watching that has left me a little dizzy and nauseous and I’m finding it hard to concentrate.

But just remember: There’s no such thing as dominionism; it’s a tiny fringe with no influence on public figures like Rick Perry; and it’s people who voted for Obama who are motivated by messianic delusions about political figures.

The following video is offered as compensation for making you watch the one above, and to allow Sister Rosetta to remind us all that when you’re singing about Jesus it shouldn’t, and doesn’t have to, suck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xzr_GBa8qk

Hail to thee, our alma mater

September 8, 2011 By Fred Clark

A couple of recent posts elsewhere have me thinking back to my childhood as a student at a private, fundamentalist Christian school in New Jersey.

Stuff Fundies Like just finished “Back to School Week,” ranging from kindergarten to college. I particularly liked this bit, from the post on high school:

By the time a young fundamentalist has reached high school the focus of their spiritual instruction has narrowed down to two basic points. 1) Not having sex with anybody and 2) Finding God’s perfect will for their life. The first one is accompanied by tales of terrible tragedy that will befall them if they DO the second is accompanied by tales of terrible tragedy if they DON’T.

Yep. But to be fair, this wasn’t just something I was taught in high school — my church youth group was teaching the exact same thing.

My alma mater was founded in 1949, and thus predates both of the two major contributors to the growth of private Protestant schooling. The first of those came in 1954 with Brown vs. the Board of Education. The Supreme Court ruling ending school segregation sparked an explosion of new private Christian schools throughout America — especially, but not exclusively, in the South.

Since I often poke fun at Timothy Christian School for teaching me creationism and for literally using Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth as a textbook, let me here offer my old school a bit of praise. It was ahead of its time in promoting and embodying racial integration. “Strength in diversity” is not a phrase that’s often associated with Christian fundamentalists, but here’s TCS’ Web page boasting of the diversity of its student body. Go you Timothy Tigers.

The second big wave of growth for Christian schooling came later and, as Warren Throckmorton reminds us, was driven by that tireless advocate of separate Christian education, Rousas John Rushdoony.

Yes, that’s the same R.J. Rushdoony who created “theonomic reconstruction” and also did more than anyone else to promote the spread of the dominion theology that so many conservatives are today claiming never existed and/or never had any real influence. Some of these same revisionists and denialists now mocking what they describe as “paranoia” or “liberal conspiracy theories” about dominionism are themselves graduates of schools inspired by Rushdoony’s push for Christian schooling. And some of them are now the parents of children attending those schools.

Rushdoony realized that the theocracy (or “Christocracy”) he desired was not a realistic hope in the short term of a generation or two. He accepted that democracy and pluralism would take many decades to be “reconstructed” and replaced with Christian dominion. And so he planned for the long term, urging Christians to create separate schools where children could be raised without the liberal propaganda of constitutional democracy and equal rights for error and truth.

Throckmorton provides a summary of this view, excerpted from a book by Rushdoony’s protege (and sometime son-in-law) Gary North:

As a tactic for a short-run defense of the independent Christian school movement, the appeal to religious liberty is legitimate. Everyone who is attempting to impose a world-and-life view on a majority (or on a ruling minority) always uses some version of the liberty doctrine to buy himself and his movement some time, some organizational freedom, and some power. …

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 …

But the revisionists rush to remind us that the existence of hundreds of Christian schools inspired by this thinking is no reason to worry that this nonexistent fringe ideology is in any way influential. Just because these inconsequential outsiders are now trying to sentence gays to death in Uganda doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to worry about them wanting to sentence gays to death here. Just because they say their aim is to deny “the religious liberty of the enemies of God” and just because they happen to view most people as “the enemies of God,” doesn’t mean that you should be afraid of them trying to erode religious liberty. All things considered, there’s very little cannibalism in the British Navy. …

This book title is a paranoid myth

September 4, 2011 By Fred Clark

Or, in the language Joe Carter used in First Things, this book title is a disreputable, “meaningless neologism” that is “never used outside liberal blogs and websites.”

As I discussed in the previous few posts, my main history with the dominionists has been with the ultra-Calvinists of the “theonomist” or “reconstructionist” branches of dominion theology. It’s only been in the past few years that I’ve learned more about the Pentecostal branch of C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation.

Before that, I knew of Wagner only through his work as a “church growth” guru. I was not a fan. I couldn’t get past his enthusiasm for what he calls the “homogenous unit principle” for church planting, church growth and evangelism in general.

And yes, that’s just what it sounds like. But it’s not about segregation for segregation’s sake — it’s all about making people more comfortable so they don’t have to worry about crossing racial, ethnic, linguistic or class barriers to come to Jesus.

I admit that I have a hard time summarizing the idea without a bit of snark seeping through, so here’s a good discussion of the idea from a sympathetic perspective. Here’s Tim Chester’s thoughtful discussion of how this idea is difficult to reconcile with the gospel of reconciliation.

A couple more items on the subject:

From Talk to Action: “Quotes on Dominionism from the Apostles and Prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation.” There’s quite a bit there to underscore the point I’ve been making here that, yes, this stuff exists. But I also want to highlight this from “Apostle” Lance Wallnau, describing the “Seven Mountains Mandate” of NAR’s brand of dominion theology:

Satan has a vast hierarchy and infrastructure of influence under his control. That whole system is designed to keep you from utilizing your own advantages as a believer in Jesus. Nevertheless, if you’re playing the game right, you can win every time. But you cannot afford to be less than 100% engaged. You don’t displace a Level 10 devil with a Level 9 strategy!”

What’s really incredible about that language is that spiritual warfare-obsessed Pentecostals like Landau would never allow their kids to play Dungeons & Dragons, and he likely has no idea what he sounds like.

Warren Throckmorton posts part 3 of his series, “What dominionists would do with gays (disobedient children, sabbath breakers, etc.),” in which he examines Stephen Che Halbrook’s 2011 book God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws.

Halbrook, who blogs at “Theonomy Resources,” is a dominionist with a master’s from Pat Robertson’s Regent University. And like his heroes — theonomists Rushdoony, North, DeMar, et. al. — Halbrook argues that homosexuality and sabbath-breaking should be capital crimes.

So if you’re gay, or not a Christian, he thinks you should be executed. For your own good as well as for the good of society.

But don’t get “paranoid,” Douglas Groothuis says, “The vast majority of those who have been influenced by certain aspects of Rushdoony’s writings emphatically reject his understanding of biblical law.”

Which makes me miss the late Graham Chapman:

First of all I’d like to apologize for the behavior of certain of my colleagues you may have seen earlier, but they are from broken homes, circus families and so on and they are in no way representative of the new modern improved British Navy. They are a small vociferous minority; and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they’re to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. …

Offshoring dominion theology

September 2, 2011 By Fred Clark

While still not a mainstream ideology, dominion theology did claim one notable convert back in the 1980s. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, host of The 700 Club, and sometime Republican candidate for president, embraced the term for many years, becoming among the first of many influential Pentecostal leaders to begin adapting the theonomists’ dominion theology to fit into their non-Calvinist, charismatic form of spirituality.

Robertson eventually backed away from using the language of “dominion” to describe his own theology, I suspect because it threatened his market share among the large premillennial dispensationalist segment of the subculture. Robertson is not a “Rapture” enthusiast, but there are millions of them out there and he wants to keep depositing their checks.

Where Robertson has retreated, other Pentecostal leaders have advanced — most notably C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation, which combines dominion theology with a sort of Amway ecclesiology of multilevel marketing.

As this Pentecostal branch has risen in prominence, the original theonomist/reconstructionist, hyper-Calvinist branch of dominionism has waned a bit. Rushdoony, their guru, and Chilton, their attack-dog, are both dead. Prolific author Gary North is still trying to recover from going all in on predictions of global calamity and his head-for-the-hills survivalism a decade ago due to the Y2K bug. Other theonomists, such as Gary DeMar, remain particularly influential in shaping the legal arguments of far-right Christians at places like Liberty University School of Law, which last year sponsored his explicitly reconstructionist “2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference — Biblical Blueprints for Victory!” (The exclamation point there is original — part of the name of the event.)

Mainly, though, those calling themselves “theonomists” have receded further from the spotlight because they’ve passed the baton. Marvin Olasky’s World magazine has taken over the thriving niche of southern-gothic Presbyterian dominionism. And Wagner’s NAR is spreading like wildfire — or like Nutrilite — in Pentecostal circles. The NAR’s message travels lighter and faster, unburdened by the baggage of R.J. Rushdoony’s weird butcherings of Kuyper, Van Til and Calvin.

With the new enthusiasm of its Pentecostal branch, dominion theology is also going international.

Rushdoony was always fairly clear-eyed about the near-term prospects for the complete “reconstruction” of America. He imagined it would take generations, maybe centuries, for his kind of Christians to take full control and establish his kind of Christian reign. But Rushdoony’s disciples see the potential for faster success in places like Uganda, where they’ve been pushing for legislation that would, as in their selective reading of the law of Moses, mandate the death penalty for homosexuals.

All of those columns and editorials pooh-poohing the influence of dominion theology were written by people who share one all-important unifying trait. Larry Ross, Doug Groothuis, Joe Carter, Ralph Reed, Ross Douthat, Lisa Miller and all the others who got the memo and wrote the assigned column all have one thing in common: None of them is a gay man living in Uganda.

Or a lesbian woman living in Uganda.

Or a straight man living in Uganda who might be perceived by others as insufficiently masculine or who might be accused by others of being overly masculine and who, thus, may wind up subject to the same oppression, intimidation and lethal injustice that the supposedly non-influential dominionists are gleefully inflicting on every GLBT person in that country.

Any gay man in Uganda could tell you that those dutifully written articles about the “paranoia” or “myths” of dominionist influence are ridiculously, disgracefully out of step with the reality of his daily life. Or at least he could tell you that if he were able to speak up without having to fear that it would cost him his life.

Oh, and there’s also this: If Jesus was telling us the truth in Matthew 25, as I believe he was, then that gay man living in Uganda? That’s Jesus. That lesbian woman or transgendered person or bisexual living in Uganda? Also Jesus.

So, you know, it might be best to put down the nails.

Lots more on dominion theology

September 1, 2011 By Fred Clark

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.” …

The fans might hate the movie

August 28, 2011 By Fred Clark

The good news for any filmmaker planning to do a Civil War movie is that you can tap into a pre-existing fan-base of enthusiastic Civil War buffs who are sure to generate plenty of buzz for the project.

The bad news is that this same fan-base might just kill your movie if you don’t get the details right. Like all fandoms, Civil War buffs are proprietary and prickly about outsiders on their turf. Get the tiniest details wrong — the wrong buttons on a general’s uniform, the wrong color for a colonel’s boots — and the backlash will be furious.

James Cameron faced this same situation when making Titanic. The subculture of Titanic fandom is smaller than the subculture of Civil War buffs, but it’s just as fiercely enthusiastic and defensive. Cameron was able to satisfy those fans because he is, himself, the biggest Titanic fan-boy of them all. He sweated all the tiny details and was able to satisfy the most devoted fans without prompting the kind of backlash that can sink a movie.

You can see that backlash all the time with comic-book movies. The fans are excited to see the story they love come to the big screen, yet they get angry when some outsider they don’t know and trust starts messing with their hero. They seem to feel simultaneously validated and violated by Hollywood’s attention. The big-budget, mainstream project promises the broader acceptance they have long desired, but at the same time that broader acceptance erodes their sense of being special and their sense of control over their story. Their fringe-y, outsider status was what had separated them from everyone else, and to have everyone else suddenly jumping on the bandwagon makes them resentful of all the newcomers.

Jack Black and Todd Louiso captured this perfectly in the movie High Fidelity, portraying the archetypal indie music snobs. They were passionate fans of great but unknown bands and, on one level, they wanted nothing more than for the whole world to hear this music and to love it as much as they did. But if that ever happened, their own enthusiasm for the music would have diminished. If everyone loves that band, then loving that band no longer makes you special. And their characters, Dick and Barry, were never sure which they loved more — the music or feeling special.

College Humor recently posted a great sketch called “Religious People Are Nerds,” in which they explored the parallels between certain forms of religious devotion and the devotion of the “nerds” of fandom.

Because what is a nerd, really? It’s just someone who’s passionately obsessed with something, like a board game, or a movie, or a series of books. And who, I ask, who are more into their books than religious people?

At the risk of offending both my fellow religious people and my fellow nerds, I think the comparison holds — not just in the comical ways that sketch suggests, but also in the dynamic tension between the desire for more mainstream acceptance and the desire to remain set apart as special.

You can see that tension at work in all those articles I mentioned in the previous post that criticized Ryan Lizza for not fully appreciating, say, all the nuance of Francis Schaeffer’s brief flirtation with theonomy. Christian PR-man Larry Ross’ article “Christian Dominionism Is a Myth,” is typical of these in reading so much like a blog post explaining what they got wrong with the Green Lantern movie. The valid complaints Ross makes are smothered by the larger, over-arching complaint that somebody else is trespassing on our turf.

It’s exactly the same proprietary defensiveness that can be found throughout every kind of fandom. The real complaint isn’t really about the particular offending details, but the more personal offense that someone else is addressing our topic without first consulting us. We are the experts, the devoted fans say, and we deserve recognition and deference for immersing ourselves in this stuff long before it was cool.

This is what frustrates me about the often excellent, often insightful “Get Religion” site, which frequently does a fine job of highlighting the inexpertise of journalists covering religion. But just as often when I read that site, I feel like I’m hearing Jack Black’s Barry mocking a customer for daring to suggest that Echo and the Bunnymen deserved to be compared to the Jesus and Mary Chain.

“If they’d just asked me first, they’d have gotten those details right!” seems to be the gist of so many complaints about religion reporting. The legitimate concern for getting the details right is always a part of that complaint, but it usually seems overshadowed by the larger complaint that they didn’t ask me first.

If Michelle Bachmann doesn't want to be regarded as having close ties to dominionists then she should stop hiring them

August 28, 2011 By Fred Clark

Douglas Groothius clutches his pearls, flutters his handkerchief and collapses on his fainting couch over Ryan Lizza’s scandalous suggestion in The New Yorker that Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has ties to advocates of “dominionist” theology.

That fainting couch is quite crowded with evangelical critics of Lizza’s piece, all adamantly insisting that Bachmann is far, far removed from anything at all that has anything to do with dominionism. Groothuis provides a fine example of their exuberant protestations, usually mingled with accusations that Lizza is ignorant or confused or deliberately lying, or perhaps all three:

There is a buzz in the political beehive about the dark dangers of Bachmann’s association with “dominionism”—a fundamentalist movement heaven-bent on imposing a hellish theocracy on America. In the August 15 issue of The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza asserts that Bachmann has been ideologically shaped by “exotic” thinkers of the dominionist stripe who pose a threat to our secular political institutions. The piece—and much of the subsequent media reaction—is a calamity of confusion, conflation, and obfuscation.

Foul, he cries, foul! It is simply unfair to accuse Bachmann of being influenced by “thinkers of the dominionist stripe!”

Warren Throckmorton notes that Bachmann aide Peter Waldron, “was key to Michele Bachmann’s straw poll win in Iowa on Aug. 13 and is now in South Carolina attempting to line up evangelicals for Bachmann.”

In 1987, Waldron co-authored a book titled, Rebuilding the Walls: A Biblical Strategy for Restoring America’s Greatness. A whiff of dominionist “reconstructionism,” perhaps, in that title. But much more than a whiff in the other book Waldron’s co-author, George Grant, published that same year.

That book, Changing the Guard, Throckmorton notices, was published by Dominion Press — the reconstructionist/dominionist publisher of books by Gary North, Gary DeMar and David Chilton, which is to say many of the leading voices in dominionism.

Here’s a snippet from the excerpt Throckmorton quotes from Grant’s book:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

The author of that book simultaneously co-authored a book on “a biblical strategy for restoring America’s greatness” with the man who is, at the moment, on Michelle Bachmann’s payroll and coordinating the religious outreach for her campaign in South Carolina.

It is not “paranoia” to suggest that Bachmann is closely tied to dominionism. It is not “confusion, conflation, and obfuscation” to point out that, in fact, Michelle Bachmann is hiring people who are closely tied to dominionism.