Dominionism

Dominionism is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians, mostly Calvinist in orientation, with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right on the political left. Leftist commonly assign the pejoritive label "Christer" to those they percieve as being "Dominionists".

Generic dominionism

Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist theology's belief that the penalties of the Levitical law remain binding upon Christians under the New Covenant is controversial among many conservative Evangelicals.

The Christian Research Institute, a noted conservative Evangelical apologetics ministry, takes the Dominionists to task for what it sees as a misunderstanding of the Bible.

Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Chistian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence. These dominionists sometimes make the claim that "America is a Christian nation."

Dominionist authors such as David Barton and controversial former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and others look to 19th century court rulings for a different perspective on Christianity's role in governement. [1] They argue the U.S. Supreme Court has undermined the framers' intent for the establishment clause since the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case.[2] They claim the morality expressed in American laws, such as the Blue laws, passed during the early part of American history deeply reflected Christianity's influence upon the culture. Such perspectives were advanced in 19th century cases such as Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824) and Holy Trinity v. Commonwealth (1892), which Domionionist authors including Pat Robertson frequently cite in support of their arguments. [3][4]

The Dominionist Chalcedon Foundation argues:

"Based upon those premises, secularists would have to admit that at the time the Constitution was ratified, America was a full-blown theocracy. Sodomy laws, blasphemy laws, and even Sabbath laws were common in various states. If secularists are crying “theocracy” now, they would’ve marched in the streets of eighteenth-century America."[5]

Now, they feel shut out, and feel the need to re-assert their presence as religious people with a valid perspective in the democratic political process and the institutions of the culture.

Few, however, articulate a position that could be called theocratic.

Critics argue the claim that the United States is a Christian nation is of questionable historic validity (often pointing out the deism of various founding fathers) , is ethnocentric, and reduces secularists and members of other religions (such as Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism) to second-class status. Religious historians, like Nathan Hatch, Mark Noll and others, also suggest that modern fundamentalists are nostalgic for a time that never really existed as they imagine it: a time in the indefinite past, before the turbulent sixties, when wholesomeness, and sanity, and harmony prevailed under a benevolent religion much as they conceive their own to be.

Theological critique

Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist theology's belief that the penalties of the Levitical law remain binding upon Christians under the New Covenant is controversial among many conservative Evangelicals.

The Christian Research Institute, a noted conservative Evangelical apologetics ministry, takes the Dominionists to task for what it sees as a misunderstanding of the Bible.

"But are Christians supposed to be taking dominion at all? Granted that there is some confusion among American Christians as to what taking dominion would mean, is there a sense in which this really is the mission of the church? A careful reading of the Bible indicates otherwise. Simply put, the Bible never commands Christians to take dominion. A search for such a mandate proves fruitless. The Bible never even hints that this is to be a responsibility of the church between Christ's first and second comings." [6]

CRI argues the Great Commission found in Matthew, Chapter 28:18-20, does not provide any sort of "Dominion Mandate" as argued by Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony or other Dominionists. "There is certainly no explicit connection made in Matthew 28 between the Great Commission and the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28. Nor are the commands to disciple, baptize, and teach somehow equivalent to 'take dominion.'" [7]

It also denies that Christians have a "general mandate from Christ to seek or achieve worldwide or even nationwide political dominion before His return."

Likewise, Bob DeWaay, a conservative Evangelical preacher from Minneapolis, argues the Dominionists strain to make biblical passages conform with their theology. "It is remarkable how much emphasis is placed on Genesis 1:26-28 as being a mandate to rule over cultures and human institutions in a fallen world when at the time that Adam was given this mandate, no such cultures existed and the world was not fallen. The text says nothing about cultures or subjugating other people." [8]

The "Christer" controversy

On 29-30 April 2005 a gathering was held at the publicly funded College University of New York (CUNY) of radical leftists to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" and to "develop stategies to defeat them". One of the speakers, Katherine Yurica, told the conference the Republican Party had gained power through "Hitlerian tactics" and that evangelical leaders from Billy Graham to Jerry Falwell "had to have read Hitler’s Mein Kampf." Chip Berlet, a Notable Wikipedian and author of Wikipedia's "Dominionist" series, said Christians have an irrational "hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos" that is "motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state." During a panel discussion debating appropriate pejoritives to employ, such as Christers or Theocons, Berlet suggested Religious Supremacist and Christian Supremacist.

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review reported on the conference. In Kurtz's words what was discussed was the Religious Rights desire to "suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property, first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-martial, extramaritial, or homosexual sex. ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft." Christians soon reacted to the hate, bigotry, and distortions coming out of the conference

Further reading

• Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory. Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.
• President Bush Called “Evil,” Evangelicals Equated With Nazis at NCC-Supported Conference, John Lomperis, The Institute on Religion and Democracy.
• The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers, Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.

• The "Christer" Controversy, Rhymes With Right, June 16, 2005.
• Religious Right Watch July 10, 2005.
• Techniques of the Propagandist, Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, Cambridge Massachusetts.
• Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"