Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Dominionism

  • Scot McKnight on Dominion Theology

    Well, actually he’s summarizing Paul C. McGlasson. I recently wrote about hearing Dutch Sheets speak and mentioned what he had to say about the term “dominionism.”

    There is something that concerns me here, and that is that Rushdoony and those who agree with him are lumped in with folks like C. Peter Wagner, and of course Sheets. There are similarities and there are differences. There are differences in goals, such as the basis of whatever biblical law various leaders would apply. Is this a reapplication of at least the civil portions of the Mosaic law, or is it a gentle application of the Sermon on the Mount? I don’t see either of these as a basis for civil administration in a pluralistic society, yet the two goals are substantially different. Then there are differences in terms of strategy. Is force permitted? Is one simply working through the democratic process, or is one trying to undermine the entire system?

    I happen to believe that the Kingdom of God, insofar as it is manifested on earth, should be manifested through the people of God, what we often call the “upper case Church.” I believe that civil administration should be secular or as religiously neutral as possible. (I’ll have to write sometime about how I combine those two potentially conflicting ideas.) But at the same time I believe that we need to be careful when we lump groups of people with quite different goals and approaches together.

     

  • Dutch Sheets and Dominionism

    I have previously written about the term “dominionism,” one which I don’t find very helpful as a label for a political position. So I was very interested to hear Dutch Sheets, one of those called (by some) a dominionist, make reference to the term.

    I was invited as a Christian leader to hear Dutch Sheets speak at Kingsway Church in Pensacola, Florida (I was unable to locate a web page for Kingsway). I’m thankful for the invitation to this session for pastors and leaders. This post isn’t a critique of that talk, but rather deals with just a few moments of his presentation that relate to the term “dominionism” which has been very controversial. I will need to mention some of my own political views in delineating the various positions.

    The bulk of the presentation dealt with the role of the church. Sheets is anxious (as I am) for us to get away from the idea that “church” is a building or a gathering at which we babysit the pew-sitters. That’s an incredible simplification of what he was saying, as he has some very specific points to make about just how we do it, but I think disagreements over details of strategy shouldn’t make us miss the main point.

    He says that the church has elevated just one of the offices (or better, gifts), pastor, over all the others, and thus has gotten unbalanced. By nature, pastors nurture people. But a group that wants to get something done needs leaders who will also get people moving. Pastors may do that to some extent, but we’ve emphasized the care and nurture part.

    He builds the way in which this happens around a broad scope of biblical history, starting with creation and the fall. Humanity is created and given dominion, then loses that dominion at the fall. Christ comes and restores what was lost. He takes the specific meaning of “legislative assembly” for the Greek word “ekklesia,” and uses it as an example of what the church is to do—act with authority. One might debate his extension of that particular meaning of the word to the New Testament, but nonetheless it gives the flavor of what he means by the church taking authority.

    It was in this context that he brought up the term “dominionist.” He indicated that he didn’t like the label, but at the same time, he noted that if it’s defined as noted above—that humanity had dominion, lost it, that Christ came and restored it, and that the church carries on that mission—then in those terms he’s a dominionist.

    I can see this term from a theological point of view. His view places a strong emphasis on the word “dominion.” You’ll hear him use that word much more than your average speaker. And if you make differences of emphasis central, then you could say his view is somewhat different from what is usually preached on this point. How frequently do you hear the word “dominion” in a discussion of the atonement? But as I mentioned earlier, I’m not writing to critique his presentation, but to clarify what he means.

    What that dominionism, as he (reluctantly) accepted the term, means in politics became clear when he discussed specifically what it would mean for the church to be “ekklesia” as he defined it. In politics, he used the example of the young man who is interested in changing education. He said that as Christians we do not use force (he repeated this a number of times). What we want, he said, is for a young man to go out, get a PhD, become the superintendent of schools, and then we would be able to do things about prayer in schools. (Prayer was the specific example he used.)

    Since it is currently quite legal for students to pray in school in the United States, despite some school boards’ overreactions, but not legal for school officials or teachers to lead or prescribe prayer, I’m going to assume that what Sheets wants here is for officially led or prescribed prayer. That would seem to be the one thing a school superintendent could work on regarding prayer in public schools. Of course, one would need to have lawyers educated and on the Supreme Court, legislators at various levels of government (a constitutional amendment might be required), and so forth.

    This was the example Sheets used of the impact of the church acting as a legislative assembly (ekklesia as he defined it) for the world. So there is a particular political strategy that comes out of the church behaving as he is calling on it to do. Understand that the presentation was only about two hours, so he did not have time to flesh it out. I have used the most fleshed out example I heard.

    So how much different is this from the basic idea that Christians should live their values in the public sphere? (I’m avoiding the “seven mountains” terminology, though that did come up.) I would simply note that there are a variety of views on how a Christian acts as part of one of the “kingdoms of this world” while being a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. For some, being part of the kingdom of heaven means no political participation at all. We witness for the kingdom of heaven, but we do not become part of the political structures. At the other extreme would be Christians who believe that we will successively take over the world’s governments until, by that means, the rule of Christ will extend to the entire world. In addition, there would be variations on just what methods are justified in pursuing those goals. Sheets specifically rejected the idea that Christians would take over the whole world; he said God would come in and finish it in a sweep.

    I personally believe that Christians should participate in a secular, pluralistic society as moral and ethical people, but not in a way that would make the society less friendly to those of other beliefs. In fact, because of the freedom I believe God gives us, I think we should make society more friendly. If the Muslims in my community want to build a mosque, I’m there to back them up. At the same time, this means I disagree on the issue of prayer in public schools. My imaginary Christian young man would grow up, get a PhD, and be the person who makes life more comfortable for an atheist student, rather than the one who requires that the atheist student hear a prescribed prayer or do Bible study.

    Sheets emphasized that he does not believe in force. I appreciate that. It distinguishes him from some extremists, and it’s a critical distinction. At the same time, my concern is that, as soon as we as Christians have the power of the state behind us, we are, by nature, employing force. I think Christian history suggests that when we bring the power of the state to bear in religious issues, the results are not good either for the church or the state. Sheets explicitly said “no separation of church and state,” though it’s important to note he said that from the church’s point of view, i.e. the church doesn’t separate itself from the state.

    At this point I see “dominionism” as a possibly useful theological label. I’m still not convinced it’s useful as a political label, and hearing Sheets speak only further convinced me of this. His position on political issues, and on the church’s action in the political sphere, is essentially the dominant position of the Christian right. They wish to get elected and enact laws that favor Christianity in the public sphere. It’s no secret. I don’t see the need for a separate label. In Escambia County Florida, where I live, that’s pretty much the definition of a conservative Republican, with the note that there’s hardly any other kind of Republican around these parts.

    Theologically, there is a greater difference, because Sheets has tied theology and the action of the church much more closely to this specific agenda. But it’s specifically of that usage that he acknowledged the term “dominionist” in the first place. And I want to note that I see his theology as a different emphasis on various elements of existing theology, and not something created out of whole cloth.

    My concern is that the more detailed of a political strategy we pursue, the more opportunities we have for division over things that are not central. That could be further illustrated by how very American both Sheets’ presentation and my response are. How does this relate to various countries in Africa? What about to Christians living in the Muslim world? How does our tying Christianity to American political goals impact the gospel message worldwide?

    I know there are dangers working from memory on hearing someone talk. As a writer and speaker myself, I generally prefer people to work from my written works, and I’d prefer my views to be taken from my books rather than my blog, if there’s a conflict. At the same time, what someone says in a more informal setting may well reflect one’s views more accurately.

    So take this as my impressions. It didn’t really shift my view on the application of the term “dominionism.” It reinforced and clarified my existing position.

     

  • The Dominionism Debate Continues

    Joel Watts and Peter Kirk are at it about dominionism, and now a book I publish, The Politics of Witness, is getting a place in the debate.

    I have a couple of problems with the title “dominionist.” First, in response to Joel, I think it is important to make distinctions between different viewpoints, even when we see some relations. Similarity is not the same as equality. I object when the right wing calls President Obama a socialist, because I think that blurs the distinction between his mixed approach to the economy and that of a real socialist. I also object when someone who thinks more Christians in office would be a good thing is equated to R.J. Rushdoony. I’ve read the latter; the two ideas are different.

    Second, my problem with the label “dominionist” is simply that I don’t see a reasonably defined movement that should all be painted (tarred?) with the same brush. It seems to me that the label is covering more people than deserve it, at a minimum.

    I’m going to write a bit more in a few days as I write one of my posts reflecting on publishing a new book, this time on The Politics of Witness. I am not favorable to the idea that we need to get more Christians in office. Personally, my voting is religiously neutral. There are many Christians for whom I would never vote. There are atheists for whom I would. I am never favorably impressed when a candidate puts his or her “born again” status front and center. I’ll explain why this is my position in that future post.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Dominionists, Dominionisimists, Theonomists and Political Labels

    If you’re expecting me to do a rundown on the definitions of all of these terms, then you’ll be disappointed. There’s plenty of writing trying to define the terms. Jeremy Pierce wrote the key post discussing “dominionismism,” titled simply Dominionismists. In it, he compares those who are concerned about dominionism with Birthers and Truthers. On the other hand Chip Berlet, (Inside the Christian Right Dominionist Movement that’s Undermining Democracy) amongst many others, sees this as a quite clearly defined movement that is “undermining democracy.”

    I don’t deny that there is a certain hysteria involved from time to time, but I think there is a much different sort of dynamic involved in mislabeling some people as dominionists, and even in trying to find a specific theological stream of movement that can properly be labeled “dominionist.” I would suggest that the fundamental problems here are different, and they are ones that regularly occur in discussing political and religious movements, doubly so when discussing a movement that is both religious and political.

    First, relatively few journalists or commentators have a serious understanding of theology or of the details of Christian movements. Even many theologians don’t really understand the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements all that well. Thus they have a hard time understanding things such as spiritual warfare or claiming dominion over territories in a spiritual sense, or what they mean by calling something demonic.

    Second, there are quite a few things that might be regarded as demonic. I believe in trying to be conscious of variations in belief. Few beliefs really exist in binary form. You can almost always find a spectrum. There are those who believe in demons, and those who don’t. But between those points there are very different beliefs about the demonic realm. Some who believe in demons actually simply take them as a sort of short hand for evil tendencies of movements. Others see actual, intelligent spiritual beings behind almost everything that happens. Failing to differentiate between those views will result in mislabeling and misunderstanding.

    Third, political labels are dangerous. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those folks who things labels are unimportant. We have to use labels to communicate. The problem with political labels is not that they are a bad idea in general, but rather that they are normally used manipulatively. This shouldn’t be surprising, considering the political process.

    The reason I don’t like political labels and use four to describe myself in the header of this blog, is not that labels are bad, but rather because I don’t quite fit into a movement. I have aspects of the four labels I use in my belief system, but I haven’t invented a single term. “Passionate moderate” is the closest I can come to one.

    But in politics labels are used more as accusations. Again, using an example from my header, “liberal charismatic” was bestowed on me by an opponent who disliked me a great deal. He disliked both liberals and charismatics, and used the label to express the extreme dislike for my views. And, quite frankly, he was closer to right than he knew.

    But in politics, labels are extended by association. Let’s suppose we have a politician who is a Christian evangelical, and believes that the gospel of the kingdom should be preached in all the world. To him, evangelism is a good word. He believes everyone should have the chance to accept the gospel, and would be happy if they all did. Christian readers will recognize this as a fairly standard Christian view. For reasons that will become apparent, I’m going to label this guy X.

    So X has friends and associates, and he reads books. He reads books by people who are more conservative than he is. He goes to a church where the general position of the congregation is to his right. The members and the pastor believe that one should vote for people who are Christians or Jews, i.e. have a “Judeo-Christian ethic.” We’re going to call the pastor Y.

    Now Y also reads books and associates with various people, whose average position is to the right of X’s friends, though there is considerable overlap. He has a friend we’ll call Z who read R. J. Rushdoony in college (incidentally so did I, for that matter), and who recommends reading Rushdoony frequently and publicly. Z doesn’t actually agree with everything that Rushdoony has to say, but he agrees with many things, and things it’s a good idea for people to hear these ideas and give them consideration.

    So X runs for office, and the press starts looking through his record and associates, and they find Y and then they realize he also has a connection with Z. How many sermons has he heard that might have quotes from Rushdoony? Who really is X anyhow? Perhaps they even have a label that now includes all three.

    But despite going to a church pastored by Y, and perhaps even reading a book recommended by Z, X doesn’t believe that only Christians or even only Christians and Jews should hold office, nor does he accept a significant portion of Rushdoony’s positions.

    At the same time, people on the far right, which we’ll define for purposes of this post as people to the right of Z, have a very different agenda. They’re looking at Z and are wondering if he’s really on their side. They find that he goes to a church pastored by Y, who won’t recommend reading Rushdoony, even though he acknowledges having read some things by him, and they discover that he meets with X who, horror of horrors, says he might vote for a Muslim or an Atheist, provided he agreed with them on the important issues. So Z, who thinks only Christians should hold office, gets labeled as a leftist.

    Now whether “dominionist” is a good label or not, I’m not absolutely certain. Personally, I don’t need it, and don’t quite see how it could be properly defined. I’d like to find a group of people who actually espouse a label such as that. I can oppose people based on easier to discover issues. For example, those who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, espouse what I see as an extreme view on abortion laws, or oppose freedom of expression won’t get my vote.

    Some of those folks may fall into the category of “dominionist,” but I find it both much harder, and of much less practical value, to try to figure out the boundaries and the membership of such a group.

    Oh, and the big difference I see between this a Birthers or Truthers is that one is falsehood in clear black and white, while this tends to be more of a fogging of differences between various people.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta