Wringing Hands Over Dominionism

Michelle Goldberg has a column up at the aptly named Daily Beast letting us all know that we really need to worry about something called “Dominionism” which supposedly prevails among Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and folks who support their campaigns.  Reinhold Niebuhr once warned of the dangers of religious illiteracy.  Here we have exhibit A.

Goldberg claims Bachmann and Perry are “deeply associated” with this “theocratic strain” of Christian fundamentalism.  Yes, they are probably so deeply associated with it that neither one of them has ever heard of R.J. Rushdoony (whom Goldberg tags as the father of this theocratic movement).

I have been part of organizations of Christian conservatives for many years and can assure Ms. Goldberg that Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism (making Hebraic law obligatory upon the broader society) exert very little influence.  In fact, I think I can probably argue empirically that Rushdoony has captured the attention of many more liberal reporters with an axe to grind than it has evangelicals.  For those of us who spend so much time thinking about political theology as to even have heard of CR, it is primarily a novelty.  To view standard issue evangelicals in the same light as Christian Reconstructionists would be like taking rank and file Democrats and comparing them to the most extreme and exotic atheistic socialists.

The overwhelming majority position of Christians around the world is that forced religion is a stench in the nostrils of a holy God.  Instead, Christians give their money to sustain people called missionaries.  We support their efforts to persuade those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ that he is the son of God and that they should enter into a relationship with him.  If those people subsequently refuse to believe in Jesus, missionaries pray for them and move on to other people.  Those engaged by missionaries join churches or just keep on doing what they were doing before.  It’s actually a pretty non-threatening business.  This is the Christian idea Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would endorse, not some fever dream of journalists hoping to bring down candidates for office.

Now, is it true that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would like to get elected and attempt to pass some of their aspirations for the good society into law?  Certainly.  This is a process called politics.  It is a feature of democracies.  And I suspect what Perry and Bachmann would like to do is reduce the size of government, which, incidentally, is not all that great a danger to individual freedom.

Of course, both are pro-life and would like to protect unborn children from being killed in the womb.  If that position is so extreme as to warrant exclusion from the political process and raving condemnations in print . . . well, in that case I’m afraid I can’t do much to help.

 

Comments

[Janna]

Whether or not the author of the article you link to is correct about the politicians' affiliations, denying the existence of Dominionism is foolish. It does exist; I have read blog posts by people who are Dominionists and by people who have gotten away from it. (Unfortunately, I cannot share links as I did not save any of them.)

All Evangelicals are not Dominionists, and all Dominionists are not Evangelicals; however, these extremist sects (e.g., Dominionists, Quiverfull families) are out there, and they are growing. Evangelicals and liberals should be working together to help people see the mistakes in their interpretation of Scripture, not arguing about whether or not such sects even exist.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Quiverfull is "extremist"? Here's what Wikipedia says: "Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative evangelical Christian couples chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere. It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God, eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization."

Hmm. My father was one of six children, and my mother was one of 12. I never knew my grandparents were extremists. Golly, you learn something every day, don't you?

[Christopher Hathaway]

I believe the functional definition of extremist is:

any one who is fully committed to a viewpoint that I find intolerable or lothesome, or really inconvenient

As in: "They are so extreme. They actually beleive that stuff.

[B Cody]

"Evangelicals and liberals should be working together to help people see the mistakes in their interpretation of Scripture..."

Janna,
It seems ironic that your agenda is okay, but not Perry's or Bachmann's.

[Hunter Baker]

I don't recall having denied the existence of Christian Reconstructionism, which is the basis of Goldberg's article. I simply denied that it exerts a significant influence on Perry, Bachmann, or the American evangelical population at large.

[BC]

I find this article hard to swallow. David Barton and the AFA are just two of the powerful voices in the US among Christian conservatives who reject separation of church and state and who long for the halcyon days of Puritan Geneva and Boston. This was clearly shown when they urged protest of a Hindu prayer in the Senate--they want public prayers, but not those prayers.

Give me those evangelicals who remember a man named Roger Williams. If you can find any.

[Hunter Baker]

No, Barton and AFA do not reject the separation of church and state. They reject the "strict" separation of church and state. Neither has any interest in forcing the infidel to pay support to the churches.

[Bob Srigley]

Craig Carter has an excellent blog on this topic:

http://politicsofthecrossresurrected.blogspot.com/2011/08/francis-schaeffer-hit-piece-in-new.html

[Janna]

Re: Quiverfull

Quiverfull adherents are not just about big families; the mother must be subject to her husband in all things, and even if the doctor says it's unsafe to become pregnant again, the husband's will prevails. Often mother and/or child die in such situations. I'm sure there are plenty of people who follow this lifestyle who are very happy; for a look at the detrimental effects such things can have on families, try reading No Longer Quivering (http://http://nolongerquivering.com/). It's not JUST about large families. (My mother was the youngest of five, my father the youngest of three, and I am the oldest of four. I hope to have a large brood myself, and I intend to homeschool. However, my husband and I are not "Quiverfull.")

Re: Whatever-all else people didn't like about what I posted.

I'm not an Evangelical. I'm also not a liberal. I don't know much about the politicians mentioned in this blog post. I'm not an extremist, really, about much of anything. I'm passionate about specific things (e.g., following the two greatest commandments as stated by Christ, ensuring that people's human rights are respected). I'm Canadian. I'm an Anglican. I'm a social libertarian, which means that I think people should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their lives, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions and are not damaging others in the process, but I also think that the government does have responsibilities to the citizens it was elected to govern (e.g., provision of basic health care without worrying about cost or insurance, legal recourse in the case of infringement of one's human rights). You don't have to like anything I say; I'm merely attempting to provide some more information and perspective.