In the Book of Judges, after the warriors of Gilead defeated the tribe of Ephraim, the surviving Ephraimites tried to cross the Jordan River back into their home territory. The Gileadites attempted to cut them off from the fords of the Jordan and needed a a way to determine if a person was an Ephraimite refugee. The solution was both simple and clever:
And when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead said to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” When he said, “No,” they said to him, “Then say Shibboleth,” and he said, “Sibboleth,” for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and slaughtered him at the fords of the Jordan. At that time 42,000 of the Ephraimites fell.
You might think after the first 40,000 or so, the Ephraimites would work on perfecting their pronunciation. But ingrained habits can be hard to change.
A prime example of this is the never-ending paranoia of the theocracy conspiracy-theorists. Fortunately, they are easily identified because they will be using the sibboleth “dominionism.” Over on Evangel, Jeremy Pierce has a useful history lesson and a devastating critique of these “Dominionismists“:
I’ve determined that there’s a political faction out there that needs a name, because it’s a group of conspiracy theorists with a particular agenda that’s becoming somewhat influential, and it’s achieving its agenda fairly well. Its agenda is to discredit mainstream evangelicalism by confusing it with extremist figures who have nearly zero influence on much of any importance. I’m going to call this group the Dominionismists, because their whole agenda depends on this fictional line of thought called Dominionism [sic].
A example of this regrettable silliness is Michelle Goldberg’s “A Christian Plot for Domination?“:
With Tim Pawlenty out of the presidential race, it is now fairly clear that the GOP candidate will either be Mitt Romney or someone who makes George W. Bush look like Tom Paine. Of the three most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination, two are deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism. If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding Dominionism isn’t optional.
Put simply, Dominionism means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing. But because it seems so outré, getting ordinary people to take it seriously can be difficult. Most writers, myself included, who explore it have been called paranoid. In a contemptuous 2006 First Things review of several books, including Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy, and my own Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote, “the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era.”
Now, however, we have the most theocratic Republican field in American history, and suddenly, the concept of Dominionism is reaching mainstream audiences.
This dominionism nonsense is about the stupidiest trend to come along since Birtherism. I could waste a lot of time pointing dissecting the ignorance but instead I’ll refer you back to Pierce’s post. Besides, Goldberg is the equivalent of Jerome “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” Corsi. She doesn’t really care about the truth, she just wants to frighten some gullible liberals and sell more copies of her book.
I have to give her credit, though. I thought on this topic that it would be difficult to produce an article less informed and more slanderous than Ryan Lizza’s embarrassing New Yorker piece. But when it comes to lowering the bar, you really can’t beat Tina Brown’s Newsweek/The Daily Beast. So kudos for your remarkable achievement, Ms. Goldberg: You’ve written the dumbest article I’ve read all year.
August 16th, 2011 | 4:28 pm
“This dominionism nonsense is about the stupidiest trend to come along since Birtherism”
Let’s not put our head in the sand about this issue. The truth is that there are many in our own churches who have been taken captive by the really bad teaching within the Dominionist camp. We are like ostriches planting our heads in the sand if we think that politicians aren’t going to try to manipulate people of faith yet again based on the current trends within the conservative Christian voter block.
Don’t let it go unnoticed that Bush was motivated to act as he did in the Middle East by the teachings of Lahaye (Left Behind) and Hagee. Let us not be unaware of the reconstructionist influence over the homeschooling subculture.
Better than dismissing Goldberg and Lizza as bizzarre conspiracy theorists, our role ought to be to straighten this mess out and help people to discern rightly.
August 16th, 2011 | 4:34 pm
DL The truth is that there are many in our own churches who have been taken captive by the really bad teaching within the Dominionist camp.
There is no “Dominionist camp.” There just isn’t. There are a very tiny number of Reconstructionists, but it is unlikely that anyone in the churches we attend it really influenced by them.
Don’t let it go unnoticed that Bush was motivated to act as he did in the Middle East by the teachings of Lahaye (Left Behind) and Hagee.
Neither Hagee nor LaHaye are Reconstructionists. They believe in Pre-mill dispensational theology which is wholly incompatible with Reconstructionism.
Let us not be unaware of the reconstructionist influence over the homeschooling subculture.
What influence? I know a lot of homeschoolers and homeschooling organizations and I can’t think of any of them that are associated with Reconstructionist. Who are you thinking about?
Better than dismissing Goldberg and Lizza as bizzarre conspiracy theorists, our role ought to be to straighten this mess out and help people to discern rightly.
I think Pierce does a pretty good job of that in his blog post. But the fact is that Goldberg, Lizza, et al., are conspiracy theorists on par with Birthers and Truthers.
August 16th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
I want to add that the reason this stuff irritates me so much is that I have absolutely no tolerance for smearing people by imaginary associations.
Imagine that I accused Goldberg of being “influenced” by domestic terrorists and for evidence I said that he supported Obama who was friends with Billy Ayers. People would think I was out of mind to make such a spurious claim. And they’d be right. But that is exactly what the Dominionismists are doing.
August 16th, 2011 | 4:52 pm
Both Hagee and Lahaye are dominionists. I never said they were reconstructionist, of course.
Dominionists and Reconstructionists are not the same.
“I know a lot of homeschoolers and homeschooling organizations and I can’t think of any of them that are associated with Reconstructionist. Who are you thinking about?”
American Vision comes to mind. I can google it too. Remember, Rushdoony is the father of the homeschool movement. Much of what Voddie Baucham does. There are very deep roots within the homeschool movement. Look for it.
August 16th, 2011 | 4:56 pm
“by imaginary associations”
We obviously move in different circles then. I come in contact with people under this stuff all the time. It is particularly pervasive within reformed churches, esp. neo-cals.
August 16th, 2011 | 5:05 pm
DL Both Hagee and Lahaye are dominionists.
What evidence to you have to support that claim? Do you know what the term “dominionist” refers to?
Dominionists and Reconstructionists are not the same.
The term is used interchangeably among the people who have been using it.
Remember, Rushdoony is the father of the homeschool movement.
No he’s not. Rushdoony influence in the homeschooling movement has been wildly overstated. Ask almost any homeschooler who he is and I bet you none of them know his name.
There are very deep roots within the homeschool movement.
Really? Then why can’t you find anything other than some fringe figures to make your point? Shouldn’t you be able to find mainstream homeschoolers that have been influenced by Reconstructionism?
August 16th, 2011 | 5:07 pm
DL We obviously move in different circles then.
Obviously so.
I come in contact with people under this stuff all the time. It is particularly pervasive within reformed churches, esp. neo-cals.
Oh, really? I go to a reformed church and call myself a “neo-calvinists.” Yet this is all new to me. Perhaps you can give me the names of some of the churches you are talking about.
August 16th, 2011 | 5:19 pm
Okay. Stick your head in the sand then. That’s fine.
Right now, I don’t have time to do all of your research for you. But it is not rocket science to find out that what I’m saying is matter of fact. Perhaps, I’ll stop back when I have more time to flesh it out for you.
August 16th, 2011 | 5:55 pm
Where is the evidence that Bush was influenced by Hagee and LaHaye for anything at all? As an amillenialist, Bush probably didn’t consider their eschatological views all that worth listening to. Did you see the interview he gave shortly after leaving office? He explicitly denied that religious beliefs had anything to do with it.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6417361
August 16th, 2011 | 5:59 pm
“Put simply, Dominionism means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions.”
Huh. I’ve never heard anyone say anything like that, although I did see Patsy Mink in Hawaii shriek that Democrats have a right to rule there, and since the overwhelming majority of Democrats are Christians, maybe she’s a good example of whatever Ms. Goldberg’s deranged mind is trying to describe here? Hopefully she can get right to work on clearing that up.
Unless she’s too busy with her forthcoming explosive expose of all the concentration camps for non-Christians that have been set up in the last decade in Texas and Minnesota, of course.
August 16th, 2011 | 6:04 pm
While we’re on the topic of sheer imbecility, the interview of Michelle Bachmann on Meet The Press the other day shouldn’t go unnoticed. For example: “Would God guide your decisions that you would make as president of the United States?” Good grief.
August 16th, 2011 | 6:16 pm
I’m hoping Michelle Goldberg will do a Bloggingheads with Mollie Hemingway on this. I would expect Hemingway to take her to task over this one. Douglas LeBlanc (also of GetReligion) dealt with this nonsense as long ago as 2007:
http://www.getreligion.org/2007/06/a-bte-noir-of-fundamentalist-phobics/
August 16th, 2011 | 7:06 pm
DL: I get your frustration with the way church leaders tend to dodge and run when huge hairy heresies like reconstructionism or zionism or you name it are discovered and exaggerated by secular media. Especially, if you encounter it as frequently as you say you do it would be particularly frustrating if other Christians were dismissive of you concerns.
However, the one thing that I would say to you is that typically these fringe movements cloister together, so just because you are in contact with them all of the time, it is quite possible that Jeremy and Joe have not. I think about what might be a common Christian interaction in Moscow, Idaho, for instance, and then compare that experience with my hometown in Salem, NJ. There will likely be very little if any comparison between the two places even within similar denominations.
Finally, I have noticed a trend in the metatext in the comments sections of blogs by Challies, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung and theology blogs like Green Baggins where many proponents of reconstructionism are engaged regularly in vigorous debate.
Again, I have no reason to believe that these men represent anything other than a ‘fringe’ element. I simply cannot figure out whether their views are growing in popularity or if they are no more than pesky proverbial thorns in the side of the ministers of the Gospel. I would that we at least take notice of their presence and guard our sheep against them.
August 16th, 2011 | 8:11 pm
I guess they had a different pair of a liberal and a GetReligion blogger discussing this issue:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38094
August 16th, 2011 | 8:31 pm
DL: “Right now, I don’t have time to do all of your research for you. But it is not rocket science to find out that what I’m saying is matter of fact. Perhaps, I’ll stop back when I have more time to flesh it out for you.”
C’mon, admit it, your dog ate the answers. That’s why you can’t reply to Joe’s questions. Bad dog! Bad dog!
August 16th, 2011 | 8:44 pm
“Right now, I don’t have time to do all of your research for you.”
Research? I thought you found them all the time. What sort of research is needed to track down stuff you are always tripping over?
August 16th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
Jeremy wrote: “Dominionismists like to lump together such diverse figures as Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, R.J. Rushdoony, James Dobson, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, Randall Terry, Pat Robertson, Charles Colson, and Nancy Pearcey as influential figures in the development of Dominionism”
Joe, you did the same thing that Jeremy was complaining that Dominionismists do. I, on the other hand, made a distinction between the two. It is inappropriate for you to try to denegrate me because you made the same mistake that Goldberg does.
Since I am at home now, I thought I’d help by providing some useful links:
First some backgrounders:
Michael D. Gabbert, Criswell College, Dallas Texas writes an excellent primer on the history of the subject:
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/reconstruction.pdf
Sam Waldron, “The Reformed Reader” has also provided this excellent synopsis:
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbs/tarba.htm
Former Reconstructionist, Greg Lorand Durand writes similarly:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HistoryOfReconstructionMovement.html
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the movement from my perspective is that Reconstructionists take Calvin and twist him for their own purposes. This makes them not only dangerous, but also puts Calvinism to shame before those outside the reformed community (this is exactly what is happening right now, the secular media is over-reacting to a small slice that is not appropriately representative of the whole).
Here is a sample of how they do their twisting:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/five_points/intro.htm
(take note of the footnote: Even though the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has repeatedly ruled in favor of admitting “theonomists,” individual Presbyteries continue to hinder admission of Reconstructionists)
Additionally, I am providing J. Ligon Duncan’s article on Reconstructionism whereby he accepts reconstructionism as a valid expression of Calvinism within the PCA, while summarizing the school of thought as such:
This prelimary sketch of Reconstructionism has revealed a number of identifiable traits of and influences on the movement. For instance, 1) it is apparent that Reconstructionism is sub-category of Calvinism. One may be a Calvinist and not be a Reconstructionist, but one may not be a Reconstructionist and not be a Calvinist (consistently). Reconstructionism borrows heavily from the Calvinistic legacy not only in its high view of Scripture, but also in its views of Church-State relations, and the complementarity of law and gospel. 2) Reconstructionism is heavily indebted to Kuyperian (and/or Dooyeweerdian) thinking about common grace and antithesis. The Reconstructionists’ “worldy-minded Calvinism” draws strongly on nineteenth and twentieth century Dutch Calvinist philosophical traditions, notwithstanding points of contact with older British precedents. 3) In terms of redemptive historical approach, Theonomists tend to stress continuity of redemptive history more or in a different way than have mainstream Calvinists. 4) Reconstructionism also rejects the older Reformed views of divine natural law and promotes a positivist view of law. 5) A tendency to supralapsarianism and mono-covenantal thought can also be found in Reconstructionist circles. That is, Theonomists are predisposed to “high Calvinism” in their view of the decrees but also to deny (wittingly or unwittingly, explicitly or implicitly) important aspects of classical, federal, bi-covenantal theology. There is much evidence of a reticence to speak about a covenant of works/covenant of grace framework, and even a hesitance to talk about distinctive stages in the covenant of grace. 6) Reconstructionists are inclined downplay or deny (theoretically and/or functionally) “common grace insights” in the Christian’s formation of a distinctively Christian approach to his culture. Theonomists are suspicious of general evangelicalism’s exaltation of general revelation over special revelation, and its the frequent capitulations to unbiblical patterns heralded as wisdom gleaned from God’s revelation in nature and providence.”
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=/ethics/ligon_duncan_critique.html
Finally, as far as Rushdoony and fathering the homeschooling movement, google will get you a thousand hits, but here is one very helpful example, Homeschooling 101, cited as follows:
“For more research in this area, you may want to check out the following books by the late Dr. R.J. Rushdoony, the Father of Modern Homeschooling …
1. Intellectual Schizophrenia by Dr. R.J.Rushdoony, Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, © 1961 This book provides the philosophical groundwork for homeschooling and private Christian schooling and more. The appendix provides a must read article on the result of the first review of the first 12 experimental government schools in the USA in the late 1890s. A real eye-opener!
2. The Messianic Character of American Education by Dr. R.J.Rushdoony, Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, © 1963. The book continues to provide the philosophical groundwork for a distinctively Christian education along with short biographies of each and every government school pusher. This is a must have.
3. The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum by Dr. R.J.Rushdoony, Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, © 1981. +
Also from Conservapedia http://conservapedia.com/Rousas_J._Rushdoony
“He is best known as a pioneering figure of the Christian Reconstruction and home schooling movements in the 20th century.”
August 16th, 2011 | 9:46 pm
Mary and Gordon, As I stated the research is for Joe, not myself. I’ve lived around this stuff for years, unfortunately. Next time, try contributing something helpful and/or meaningful, please.
Thanks, Lou G. I agree with you. I’ve probably had way more direct experience than most folks will never have. True also that the group tends to cloister. The church I attended ended up breaking up over these theological controversies. So, I’m still a bit raw over it all.
August 16th, 2011 | 10:04 pm
Honestly, reading a little on the wiki makes me think it’s just an attempt to link general points the christian right makes with a pretty nasty fringe movement and tar the former by association.
I don’t disagree with DL that his church is packed with them, or it exists. I can see reconstructionism appealing to some, but it’s a bit chilling to see people make an issue out of this so close to anders brevik. There’s way too much demonization from the secular left at this point for my comfort.
August 17th, 2011 | 1:19 am
Joe, DL is right about reconstructionist influence in the homeschool subculture. Anecdotally I can tell you that bits of the philosophy of Vision Forum and materials they promote have been floating around the homeschooling circles I move in, which include people from all over the nation, since I started homeschooling 11 years ago. They do not all scream “reconstructionist” in flashing neon but have in common a “take dominion” flavor and are in a lot of homeschool literature like that promoted by the NYS Loving Education at Home (LEAH) organization.
Not to mention that the movement to stay home and have lots of children (and homeschool them), besides being anti-feminist, anti-contraception, and anti-public-education, purposed to fight world take-over by non-Christians in terms of population–not exactly what was meant in Genesis 1:28, but I know many who hold this view. Mary Pride I think was the first to espouse it in the 70s (The Way Home) and has been very influential to homeschoolers, having written homeschooling guides as well.
The church I’ve attended semi-regularly for the last year is non-denominational but strongly Calvinist and teaches some sort of reconstructionism; I’m not sure exactly what, but I suspect Chalcedon Foundation influence. A church affiliate offered a class for young people using material by J. Steven Wilkins, which, if I remember correctly, portrayed America as God’s chosen nation and contained, among other things, historical inaccuracies that even my kids noticed. Unfortunately there are many very good, kind, well-meaning people who are highly influenced by this kind of teaching. I know them; they are my friends!
Do they call themselves dominionists, or think of this teaching as dominionist? No. Are they Sara-Diamond-dominionists? No. But…there are many variants of incorrect dominion theology besides the narrow, as-defined-by-Diamond view. And they are politically influential, although adherents would likely not vote differently than a typical conservative. However, just because no current candidate espouses extreme Rushdoony-type views, nor would such a candidate ever get very far, this doesn’t mean that more subtle erroneous Rushdoony influence is not widespread.
In other words, call dominionism fictional, but the more subtle strains of thought *are* out there. NPR, Lizza, et al may be exaggerating and lying, but perhaps their case for the existence of wrong-headed reconstructionist influence is not as *completely* baseless as you and Jeremy portray.
August 17th, 2011 | 6:13 am
[...] dominionism nonsense is about the stupidiest trend to come along since Birtherism," wrote Joe Carter for First Thoughts. According to Carter, dominionists represent a small and fringe group of [...]
August 17th, 2011 | 7:08 am
No one is claiming here that there are no people who believe things in the direction of what Diamond calls Dominionism. What Joe and I are insisting on is that there is no group such as the one that these people are all insisting on, a group that believes the particular claim they’re talking about, that Christians ought to occupy all important positions in society as fulfillment of the command to take dominion in Genesis, a group that consists pretty much of anyone who thinks they should vote their conscience and has socially-conservative views, a group that includes mainstream conservatives who happen to have influence from people like Francis Schaeffer, who opposed anything remotely in the direction of the kind of view they attribute to him, and a group that includes anyone who has remote connections with any aspect of anyone they include in this group, even if it’s for entirely different reasons.
This is a conspiracy theory, and the fact that elements of the view in question are held by a larger number of people than anyone with a genuine understanding of scripture should like does not change that fact. I’m much more concerned about what people like Diamond, Goldberg, and Lizza are purveying than I am about what Gary North and company are achieving. Most of the people they influence vote in ways that generally agree with my own sense of what to vote for, even if at times they’re absolutist about things that aren’t important, and occasionally they introduce policies that are stupid but have little chance of passing or lasting long. But the effect of Lizza, Goldberg, and company is to tar good people who don’t accept this radical view with a label that reeks of extremism and dangerous conspiracy-mongering, and that kind of evil needs to be publicly challenged, which is what Joe and I have been doing.
NB
There’s plenty of theological critique of reconstructionism, and there’s plenty of political critique from conservatives against the more extreme conservatives in question. These do occur at the levels appropriate for what kind of threat they are. What there isn’t is much of a level of response to Dominionismism at the levels appropriate to the high visibility of people like Terry Gross, Diane Rehm, Michelle Goldberg, The Huffington Post, Bloggingheads, etc. First Things is a start, but it’s only a start, and this incredible pushback against merely recognizing the conspiracy-theory element to this Dominionism obsession baffles me, especially since it’s coming from people who know the real Reconstructionist movement and should known that it’s a fringe movement politically that isn’t actually what lies behind most social conservatives who have religious motivations.
August 17th, 2011 | 8:11 am
Correction: Mary Pride’s influence began in the 80s, not the 70s.
August 17th, 2011 | 10:38 am
DL,
Probably about a third of the kids in my tiny Eastern Orthodox parish are home schooled. Why do they do this? Because the Chicago public schools in their neighborhoods are complete failures and dangerous no-go zones. Also, in the founding tradition of so many of our nation’s private universities and colleges, they recognize the need for a Christian foundation to their children’s education.
I’m picturing you addressing them with “Yeah, there’s this mysterious, evil man named Rushdoony whose cult, whether you are secretly a member or not, is ultimately behind your homeschooling. Here…look at this quote from this book here, it says right here this is what you are all about…”
Anyway, you’ve made my morning more amusing.
August 17th, 2011 | 11:37 am
We have homeschooled for several years now. As most people know, there are many, many Roman Catholic homeschoolers who wouldn’t know Rushdoony from Rush Limbaugh, and who no doubt resent the conspiracy-theory smears from the cultural left. Here in Philadelphia, we are involved with a Christian homeschooling network, and, as Orthodox Christians, are very much in the minority, along with our Catholic friends, within the group. There have been some theological bumps, but mostly it’s been wonderful, and we’ve been strengthened as Christians and as homeschoolers by our friendship with the Evangelical and other Protestants in the group, which has been welcoming to us.
While I don’t doubt that there are plenty of these Rushdoonyites in the homeschooling movement, it’s unfair and inaccurate to take that fringe group as even remotely representative of the homeschooling movement. In our Philly neighborhood, many of the homeschoolers are totally secular.
What this Dominionist conspiracy theory really represents, in my view, is a theoretical justification for liberal moral panic about homeschooling. There’s something about homeschooling that really sets some people off — usually having to do with the loss of social control over the children of homeschoolers (this, by the way, is something I’ve seen come from some conservatives too). It bothers some people a lot for reasons that are sometimes hard to identify or to articulate, so they gravitate to conspiracy theories like this to justify the fact that they just flat-out don’t like homeschooling, and think homeschoolers are up to no good.
I think too that we are all (I include myself in this) too quick to jump to conclusions about people based on their associations. The treatment of Rick Perry, and his association with Dominionist pastors, is a good example. To be clear, I am not a Rick Perry fan, and I don’t like the way he plays to the red-meat religious crowd in Texas, where I lived from 2003 to 2010. But I am not really bothered by Perry’s meeting with these folks, and praying with them. To live in Texas is to encounter a range of religious people, and religious opinion, that you don’t see most places in this country. The governor of Texas is going to end up meeting with all kinds of religious folks, and praying with them, because that’s what Texans do. Unless you live in a bubble, you’re going to meet from time to time fellow Texans who believe things that you don’t agree with, and may not like one bit. But you get along with them, because maybe they’re good folks, all things considered.
That Perry has been blasted for his association with these people made me rethink my own freakout over Obama’s association with the obnoxious and bigoted Jeremiah Wright. Mind you, Wright was Obama’s pastor, and as far as I know, Perry’s pastor is not a Dominionist, so the analogy is not perfect. Still, I remember when that was a controversy, people familiar with black church life saying that Wright’s outrageous comments shouldn’t be taken all that seriously, because black preachers of that generation say stuff like that all the time, and one shouldn’t imagine that Obama agrees with him. I thought it was a lame excuse at the time, because I didn’t, and don’t, know much about the black church and its traditions. Thinking about it in light of Perry and his associations with hard-right Texas preachers, I can have more sympathy for Obama. Doesn’t mean I like Jeremiah Wright one bit, but, well, people are complicated, and so is religious life in America.
August 17th, 2011 | 11:49 am
This isn’t really news.
I first heard about the evil Dominionists coming to take over America a decade ago.
I was a left winger then, and I believed it. Like everyone else, I found it scary, and I accepted my handouts.
Dominionists hate everyone who is not a Christian. They want the right to stone their children, and nonbelievers who refuse to convert should be stoned too.
There were more accusations – I don’t remember them all – but the point is, I was going to write an article and expose this for what it is.
Except that when I went to research this, I couldn’t find anything. Even the handouts I was given yielded nothing but some dead links – and without the links backing up the “interpretation” of the articles I’d been given, the articles could just be taken way out of context.
So I let it drop. And I forgot about it.
A lot of the political discourse in America would look different if half the nation weren’t being deliberately filled with fear of, and hatred toward, the other half nation.
August 17th, 2011 | 11:50 am
I do admit to being a bit concerned about whacky charismatics like Lou Engle and Mike Bickle, and I’m particularly concerned about Rick Perry’s assoction with them.
August 17th, 2011 | 2:33 pm
I just listened to today’s interview on this subject with Frank Schaeffer on Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! He said that the religious right “hates America” and believes in a misogynistic “bronze age mythology.” He really warmed to the subject. There is no sadness in his voice, and not the slightest reluctance to condemn his former friends or family.
Many years ago someone gave me a taped lecture by “Franky” on the arts. It was just awful. The worse thing about it wasn’t the many errors of fact displayed, but the overall tone of careless antagonism and snark. The guy is a piece of work, whatever he espouses.
August 17th, 2011 | 3:47 pm
See Bishop James Conley’s First Things article, America’s Atheocracy here:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/07/americarsquos-atheocracy
There is nothing new about atheocrats having apoplectic conniption fits, irrationally sounding the “THEOCRACY!!!” alarm. Atheocrats accusing those who oppose them with wanting to establish a theocracy would be entirely silly except that the method to their madness is to intentionally deceive, so they must be taken seriously in spite of their claim being laughable otherwise. Nobody who is sane wants a theocracy. Far worse than a forced theocracy is the atheocracy currently in power.
The Founders didn’t establish a theocracy. They very pointedly disallowed a state religion and insisted on the rights of everyone to freely practice their own religion or no religion at all. What they did do is establish a government based upon theism and natural law. They did so for good reasons.
What thoughtful Christians do want is the end of brutal violations of human dignity that are inevitably brought about by both atheocracy and the forced imposition of a theocracy. They want to return to theistic government based upon “eternal principles of justice.” In other words they only want to rebuild on our original foundation. They want to alter or abolish the treasonous departure from that, an atheocracy that has already taken the lives of millions of innocent human beings via “legal” abortion and will — doubt it at the peril of your loved ones — take millions more via “legal” euthanasia until we have accomplished that which our Founders plainly said was our duty to do, that is, alter or abolish our government if it no longer protects the inalienable rights of humanity, so that we may secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
August 17th, 2011 | 5:00 pm
Does anyone here personally know any theocrats? I certainly don’t. Yet the political left talks about them all the time. So, the “Dominionist” threat comes out of left field for me. But then so does the “Reconstructionist” threat. I guess all the good heresy names like Donatism, Montanism, and even Gnostics were taken. Please forgive me, I’m just an X-ian.
August 17th, 2011 | 5:48 pm
Thanks, Rod, for another intelligent response.
August 17th, 2011 | 7:58 pm
[...] Carter definitely didn’t submit a follow-up calling them the New Birthers posted at the Evangel Blog but it’s here [...]
August 18th, 2011 | 5:37 am
DL said:
Dominionists and Reconstructionists are not the same.
No? As a Calvinist who has been repeatedly irritated by reconstructionists, theonomists, whatever you want to call them, I’ve found their message is pretty consistent: let’s turn America into the new Israel; let’s bring God’s law to bear on a pluralistic society.
So what’s the difference?
August 18th, 2011 | 12:08 pm
@DB, I don’t know much about this new labeling. But as I understand it, even from the Wikipedia article on Dominionists, Dominionists is a label created by people for other people they do not like while Reconstructionists so label themselves. Labels people create for other people tend to be very inconsistent hence the broad sweep given to those who find Dominionists under their bed. Now theonomists is new to me, so it’s back to Wikipedia.
August 18th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
For the record, I was homeschooled, and I’ve discussed this issue with many other homeschool grads. The modern homeschooling movement did begin with RJR. It’s impossible to name all of the individuals and organizations who have been involved in the way most of the conservative Christian homeschooling movement has developed over the decades up to now: Gary North, David Bahnsen, Gary DeMar (American Vision), Doug Phillips (Vision Forum), Gregg Harris, Josh Harris, Mike Farris (HSLDA), Bill Gothard, Jonathan Lindvall, Voddie Baucham, Geoff Botkin, etc., etc. While they’re beliefs certainly aren’t accepted by all homeschoolers, or even all Christian homeschoolers, they had/do have a considerable amount of influence over the way homeschooling is been promoted and viewed by the public. And all have held/do hold some sort of “dominionist”-type outlook.
August 18th, 2011 | 4:25 pm
Jenny And all have held/do hold some sort of “dominionist”-type outlook.
If people want to make such scurrilous claims, they should really back them up with evidence. How, for example, has Mike Farris show “some sort of “dominionist”-type outlook”? What has he said that would imply that only Christians should run government and cultural organizations?
August 18th, 2011 | 5:55 pm
Joe, while liberals are inappropriately using the “dominionist” term as some sort of consipiracy label, you do seem to have your head in the sand as far as the overreach that reconstructionism has had of late. Rather than researching it, you seem bent on finding some loophole way to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you on this.
Within reformed churches, reconstructionists have gotten their tentacles into everything from Family Integrated Worship, to homeschooling, to federal vision. What I think you are missing is HOW these influences are gaining a foothold in churches. Not from within traditional structures, but rather from information distributed by non-denominational sources: websites, newsletters, magazines, books, homeschooling curricula, etc.. Just because the movement is happening directly on your personal radar doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist — and that it isn’t gaining steam.
People who read and comment on your blog are not Michele Goldberg fans. We are conservative Christians without a liberal agenda to try to discredit political candidates. You would do well to take a slightly less dismissive approach.
August 18th, 2011 | 5:59 pm
should be “isn’t” happening on your personal radar
August 18th, 2011 | 8:13 pm
Mr Carter. If you think the charge of Dominionism from the left is absurd then would you be willing to admit that you’re wrong if it turns out that the GOP candidate for 2012 said something which can be construed as support for Dominionist POV?
Something like: The candidate said that muslims or gays or gay muslims (Hey, it can happen) are not allowed to be president because it’s against the Bible. Or something like that.
Would you then admit that you’re wrong and that Dominionism isn’t a matter to be dismissed or taken lightly?
August 18th, 2011 | 8:32 pm
Josh Harris? Are you serious? Are we talking the guy who wrote the book about kissing dating goodbye who then became a pastor and is one of the more mainstream young Reformed pastors in the Gospel Coalition? I don’t know of even one instance when he’s had anything political to say publicly, other than just being opposed to abortion and such. You’ve exhibited exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about.
August 18th, 2011 | 9:18 pm
Jeremy, and you’ve exhibited exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about.
August 18th, 2011 | 9:46 pm
JR Rather than researching it, you seem bent on finding some loophole way to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you on this.
Actually, I have researched it for both personal and professional reasons (i.e., so that neither I nor the political candidate I used to work for would have any association with such groups). And what I’ve found is that the actual influence of reconstructionism is negligible.
Within reformed churches, reconstructionists have gotten their tentacles into everything from Family Integrated Worship, to homeschooling, to federal vision.
I read the sentence a couple of times and I’m still not sure which way you meant it. I assume that you are not saying that any of these things are inherently associated with reconstructionism. So that would mean you are claiming that reconstructionists are having an influence in these areas. If so, I think it helps to illustrate my point.
First, reformed churches are a relatively small part of the evangelical movement, and things like FIW and federal vision are only a small part of reformed churches. Even if the reconstructionists had a large influence on these areas, it would still be rather neglible from a national perspective.
Second, if the reconstructionists are having an influence in these areas, it is likely that they are doing so in a manner that doesn’t have much to do with reconstructionism. I suspect that once people learn about their views on such issues as living under Old Testament laws, they are less enthralled with them than they were before.
What I think you are missing is HOW these influences are gaining a foothold in churches. Not from within traditional structures, but rather from information distributed by non-denominational sources: websites, newsletters, magazines, books, homeschooling curricula, etc.
I’ve never claimed that the influence of reconstructionism in America is non-existent. But the fact that some homeschooling co-op in, say, Sedgwick, Colorado uses some reconstructionists materials is no reason to be concerned about America turning into a theocracy.
Just because the movement is happening directly on your personal radar doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist — and that it isn’t gaining steam.
If I am wrong about this issue, I will gladly admit I’m wrong. But so far no one has presented any actual evidence that the movement is growing in influence. If it were the liberals would not have to make us stuff about Francis Schaeffer—they could point out how [Insert prominent megachurch preacher] is an avowed theonomist.
They can’t because, as I still contend, reconstructionism is a negligible influence. For anyone who thinks otherwise I would ask them to try this exercise: Name 5 living influential theonomists and the mainstream people (politicians, pastors, etc.) who claim to be influenced by them. If they are able to complete that task, then have them show the list to your average evangelical and ask them how many they have heard of before.
We are conservative Christians without a liberal agenda to try to discredit political candidates. You would do well to take a slightly less dismissive approach.
I’m certainly not questioning your motives. I just think that the people who are making the claims are folks who are in the reformed culture and have a greater awareness and sensitivity to the existence of any reconstructionists. If we look at it only from our internal perspective, their influence can seem much larger than it is in reality.
Lee Mr Carter. If you think the charge of Dominionism from the left is absurd then would you be willing to admit that you’re wrong if it turns out that the GOP candidate for 2012 said something which can be construed as support for Dominionist POV?
Well, no, I wouldn’t. If a candidate were to say “Jesus is Lord” it could be construed as support for Dominionist POV.” I would only be willing to admit I’m wrong if (a) the candidate is a professed theonomist, (b) the candidate admits to be influenced by actual theonomists, or (c) evidence can be presented that shows the candidate has been directly influenced by theonimists. To say that someone has a “Dominionist POV” is strong charge that requires strong evidence.
Something like: The candidate said that muslims or gays or gay muslims (Hey, it can happen) are not allowed to be president because it’s against the Bible. Or something like that.
Would that be something a “Dominionist” might say? Sure. Does it mean that the person saying it is a “Dominionist?” Not necessarily. It could simply be that they are saying something stupid in order to appeal to gullible voters who are anti-gay/anti-Muslim.
For example, Herman Cain has made just such a dumb statement about Muslims. But he did so not because he wants to establish a Christian theocracy but because he fears an Islamic theocracy. That’s not “dominionist,” it’s just ignorant.
Also, no self-respecting reconstructionist would apologize for making such a comment, as Cain has done.
August 19th, 2011 | 1:19 am
What Joe said. You’re misrepresenting our argument as the claim that there are no theonomists or that theonomists are not influencing the Reformed fringe that buys into reconstructionism.
Joe’s point, and mine, was principally to take on the recent claims that are not just false but especially dangerous and slanderous that have been made against mainstream evangelicals. That point is consistent with not liking reconstructionism (in fact it depends on it) and wanting it to be minimized. But think about who the audience of First Things is. It’s not primarily the reconstructionist fringe in those Reformed Churches you speak of. The Reformed readers of First Things are more mainstream, more of the Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson type. But First Things does have mainstream liberal/progressive readers, and it’s that particular group that Joe hopes to offer a corrective to in case they’ve bought in to this increasingly high-profile nonsense that conservative evangelicalism is dominionism. That view is appearing in major information sources with significant influence. Nothing Gary North writes is doing that.
August 19th, 2011 | 6:26 am
Thank you for that explanation, gentlemen. I do get what you’re saying and am very appreciative for your time in responding here to the comments. Peace in Christ.
August 19th, 2011 | 12:00 pm
But the fact that some homeschooling co-op in, say, Sedgwick, Colorado uses some reconstructionists materials is no reason to be concerned about America turning into a theocracy.
There is if you’re terrified of Christians.
If you’re terrified enough of Christians to engage in certain patterns of thoughts, and certain patterns of behavior, then, yes, the fact that 20% or 10% or 1% or .001% of the population does something you find scary is in fact enough to justify the scapegoating of all of “those” people.
August 19th, 2011 | 8:31 pm
Dominionists are definitely fringe, but they are prolific writers so they appear to be more numerous than they really are. I rarely bump into one among Reformed circles offline.
There are small pockets of postmillenial Christians called theonomists or dominionists whose believe that today the civil magistrate has the duty to execute (put to death) those positively promoting a false religion publicly, OR one who tries to seduce someone away from worshiping the God of Abraham.
I hope you never again conclude that one’s eschatology does not matter. look closely to see that there is a similarity between liberation theology on the left and theonomy or these kinds of dominion theology on the right. Both are over-realized postmillenial eschatologies. They seem to overlook the fact that Jesus underwent the death penalty for all who would believe and that unbelievers benefit second hand because of his death for the time being. We are never told in the NT to execute people for their dishonoring of God. On the contrary, this is the time of God’s patience where he is in-gathering people for himself while we proclaim the gospel to every creature under heaven. This takes time and patience and the grace of God to persuade people off of false beliefs. What people did in Israel is a picture of what will happen when Christ returns and tramples down His enemies in the winepress of his wrath. To think this is our duty at the present moment is a critical error and misapprehension of the nature of Christianity.
See my short blog post:
Do Christians Want a Theocratic or a Secularist State? Or Neither? http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/08/a_theocratic_or_a_secularist_s.php
August 21st, 2011 | 10:03 pm
John, great article.
Dr. Michael Horton has also written a piece interacting with this exact topic at The White Horse Inn:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/19/the-politics-of-enthusiasm/
August 21st, 2011 | 10:13 pm
Homeschool movement:
I’m surprised no one mentioned Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore. In my experience, it was their work and their books that most powerfully engined the modern homeschooling movement at its beginning.
Perhaps theorists entered later, but I don’t think their ideas were as widespread or influential. Gregg Harris came much later and was more an encouraging voice who helped formulate organizational helps and methods. I attended one of his workshop seminars.
Homeschool was more a reaction to the poor results and politicizing of public schooling. It had duel prongs of those who homeschooled for religious reasons as Christianity was censored from public schools and those who had academic concerns and a different educational philosophy from the status quo (the unschooling movement).
Dominionism:
There is a big difference between those who advocate Christian participation and influence in government and other areas of society and those who advocate “theocracy” . I think the arguments warning of danger conflate the two and blur the difference for effect.
August 24th, 2011 | 11:13 pm
Joe, Terry Gross is at it again. This time it’s the actual Dominion Theology of C. Peter Wagner, and she’s tying it to Rick Perry because some of them were at the prayer rally.
August 26th, 2011 | 12:28 am
[...] Goldberg an apology. In commenting on her last week article on “dominionism,” I said it was the “dumbest article I’ve read all year.” I realize I was too hasty. Now that Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, has [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact