The Myth of Dominionists and the Left's Scaremongering False Linkage to Christians and Christian Politicians

Every once in a while the Left/Secularist/Atheists rise up a bogeyman I would surmise may be less than one in ten thousand Christians have even heard of. This is a group created whole cloth by Left, identified as Dominionists.

Leftist extremists like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the “Daily Beast” and what used to be a legitimate news magazine “Newsweek” (I think they merged with the “Daily Beast” but not sure and not the reason for this blog), are the main contributors to this creation. It’s believed by these people the “Dominionists” have “a direct line to God” as Maddow reported three or four years ago (I think leading up to the 2012 elections) and their purpose is to “clear the way for the [end of the world]…by infiltrating and taking over government”. (Christians call the direct line to God prayer.)

These Leftists have other names for the people that want to create a theocracy: Reconstructionists, Theonomists. The New Apostolic Reformation. I’m sure there are others, but the Leftists tie in all Republicans, Conservatives, TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already), and Christians to this made up group. Create an idea or group (or give a group power/influence they don’t have), tie your enemies to it, and you’ve got your bogeyman. The political leaders of this group apparently are Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry. Really. “Theologian” Albert Outler claim GW Bush "the first prince of the theocratic states of America." You see, he fell under the influence of some “Assembly of God” preachers. A few years ago I read some Leftist article or blog and she stated the Reagan years were a horrible oppressive theocracy. Who knew?

Millions of Americans I guess were forced to their knees to pray, go to church, and worship or else they were beheaded, beaten, given lashes, imprisoned, and who knows what else. The number of homosexuals and adulterers that were beaten and imprisoned during the Reagan years was off the charts! Part of this Leftists “dominionist” scare propaganda is drawing lines of moral equivalency between Christians and Islamofascists. Christians are really like the Taliban and ISIS you see.  

The founder of this group was R.J. Rushdoony. He had a guy, Gary North, who later became Rushdoony’s son in law, who tried to apply the principals of Rushdoony’s theocracy or "theonomy" (God-rooted law) in real time. He worked for a bit as a staffer for Ron Paul, got involved in some Southern politics, failed, and had a big fall out with Rushdoony. There were two other guys, Greg Bahnsen and David Chilton; they died in 1995 and 1997 respectively. Since then the “Reconstructionists” have been on the outs with mainstream Christians because just regular Christians are ideologically impure. Plus plain ol’ ordinary church going Christians have no idea who these guys are and what they preach and teach.

Public tax return records show the “Reconstructionists” core organization, Chalcedon, show way less than a $million in their coffers, and haven’t since about 2001. They have no money, no leader, no one knows about them, and have no influence in politics.

One last issue raised by Leftists that they want to use in their fear mongering, (and proposed by Rushdoony [and lots of others, but for propaganda purposes they focus on the nutjob Rushdoony) is the horribleness of home schooling. This country was pretty much home schooled up until the 1920’s, and by the looks of it, we were a pretty successful country. Home schooling has been growing steadily for a couple decades, certainly the last decade, and who can blame parents for making that sacrifice? Since the Department of Education was formed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, kids have been graduating functionally illiterate, can’t do arithmetic, and history for them is what they are aware of only in their own lifetime. Teaching kids those things is horrible because it makes it harder to have them submit to the State.

Like Colombo, one more thing, there is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the Constitution. The “Establishment Clause” clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That’s it. That Christians participate in politics does not mean they are writing laws establishing a State Religion, though they are guided by (and sometimes fall short of) those moral principles. Sadly and dangerously the Left/Secularists/Atheists see any application of Judeo-Christian moral principles as the establishment of a theocracy.

The last time Leftists started this church and state thing, and the rise of dominionism, was just before the 2012 election. Fear mongering, and just plain making stuff up. There’s no there, there.   

What the Heck Is "Christian Dominionism" and How the Left Is Using It As A Political Bludgeon

Michelle Goldberg

Since Leftists and their Democrat Party have no arguments that defend their abysmal socio-economic record, they have to attack Conservatives and Republicans on their youthful indiscretions or their Christian beliefs. They even go so far as to attack family members (Bachman’s husband is a closet gay, Palin’s Down’s Syndrome son Trig was the result of incest between her husband and daughter). I read and study a lot of religion, and I’ve never heard of “Dominionism” and “Dominionists” and “Christian Reconstructionists”. If I haven't heard of it, rest assured regular day to day ordinary non-scholarly Christians have no idea of them. There are the Christian “Deconstructionists” that take form thorough the “Sojourners” and Marxist Jim Wallis. Will blog on that later.

Apparently Dominionists are a Christian fringe group advocating for Christian world dominion. Even though most Christians haven’t even heard of this group or idea, what the Left is doing is trying to connect individuals, specifically Bachman and Perry, to this group, and then connect that to Christians in general to it, and that to Islamofacists. A little odd, since many Leftists advocate for Sharia Law being incorporated into Western Civilization’s socio-economic values and structure, and refuse to call Islamofascist terrorists, terrorists. The Bishop of Canterbury has even said Sharia Law should be incorporated into Christianity.

Writing in “The Daily Beast” Michelle Goldberg:

"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.” I wouldn’t call her paranoid, just a Christophobe. 

"Again, mainstream U.S. America doesn’t understand that people like Michele Bachmann have signed onto Bronze Age mythology, including its misogyny, its homophobia, its racism, and all the rest of it, and that that is the religion they are part of…, a bigot, and intolerant." Just like Islamofascists. 

I remember reading an article by another bigoted Christophobe commentator saying the Reagan years were a horrible time because we lived in an oppressive Christian Theocracy. Really? Goldberg goes on to say: “Think of it like political Islamism, which shapes the activism of a number of antagonistic fundamentalist movements, from Sunni Wahabis in the Arab world to Shiite fundamentalists in Iran.” So there’s the link to terrorists and murderers in the name of religion, and that is what Christianity is really about too.

Goldberg and other intolerant bigots say Dominionists want the Constitution jettisoned and Old Testament laws to govern a Theocratic State. That would mean homosexuals, adulterers and the rest would be executed for their transgressions. Then they connect Bachman and Perry to this, and infer that all Christians advocate this. Of course when called on this idiocy they obfuscate and say that’s not what they meant. One of the reasons it’s hard to debate and discuss issues with Leftists is they say and do stuff, then say they didn’t say and do that stuff.

Goldberg on Perry: “Perry tends to be regarded as marginally more reasonable than Bachmann, but he is as closely associated with Dominionism as she is, though his links are to a different strain of the ideology.”

The reason she’s able to connect Perry and Bachman with Dominionism is they know somebody that knows somebody that may have expressed some ideas that Goldberg views as “Christian Nationalism”. Guilt by association, and all Christians are closet "Christian Nationalists". 

There’s another character pushing this Christophobia, Frank Schaeffer, apparently an evangelical at one time. He’s with Goldberg that Bachman and Perry are “Dominionists” and their goal is to infiltrate the government an turn America into a theocracy, and from there to world domination. He claims Bachman “would replace American democracy with a theocracy on a Christian level that would mirror something like modern-day Iran after it fell to the Ayatollah Khomeini.” Even more a grievous lie is, “Again, mainstream U.S. America doesn’t understand that people like Michele Bachmann have signed onto Bronze Age mythology, including its misogyny, its homophobia, its racism, and all the rest of it, and that that is the religion they are part of…”

Of course the Jurassic Press picks up on this unquestioningly, and offers it up in watered down forms. Like the whole “submission” kerfuffle, they know nothing of Christianity, its theology or history, yet will propagate this as truth because their arguments for their Religion of the State carry no weight. 

On Submission

Apostle Paul Writing Epistles

Byron York: “In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, “But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ ”

“As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Bachman: “Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect.

“I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.”

“Submission” is seriously misunderstood and misapplied word; one of those words that has transformed away from its original meaning. It’s important to know the source of ideas and words, especially in the case of Bryon York’s question.

Most think of submission as being exploited or dominated or manipulated, that it’s not voluntary. The word derives from the Greek hupotasso “to submit”, and regards military structure. The idea in scripture, which York and most others seem not to understand, has an entirely different meaning from their modern belief system.

Matthew 8:5-10 Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”  And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”  The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!

We live in a hierarchical universe, like it or not. The centurion speaks of being under authority, and he willingly submits to that authority. He gives orders based on that authority. His subordinates willingly obey that authority. When this happens everyone benefits. The mission gets accomplished. The goal is reached. There’s purpose to the group.

Would York have a job writing for the various organizations he does if he didn’t submit to the rules, the authority, of those organizations? I don’t know if York has children, but if he, or anyone does, I would hope he expects submission of them to him. If he’s married I would hope his wife listens to his suggestions and ideas and vice versa. Oversimplified, but to the point, everyone has a boss. You don’t have to submit, you can’t be forced. If one is forced, that not submission, that’s oppression or slavery.

The question York asked comes from the misunderstood and misapplied passage in Corinthians 11:2-16  

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

The word “head” in various forms is used nine times in Scripture, mostly having to do with the physical head. There’s a lot more to this, but the veil for women Paul wanted used in church was egalitarian in nature. “To get married” and “to veil” were the same word. If a woman was veiled she could also be a widow. Women in the upper classes had their hair styled, which the lower classes and slaves couldn’t afford. Paul saying that all women should be veiled in church was for the purpose of eliminating class distinction.

Paul talking here of a man not being independent of a woman or a woman independent of a man is really radical, because in those times there was no equality between the sexes. The veil is a “symbol of authority on her head”. Equality in a public place, never before even contemplated. Paul wants this egalitarianism in marriage too, going back to Genesis that married couples become one flesh. Some have even suggested that having sex makes the couple one flesh; which is why ‘friend with benefits’ can’t work.

Paul also creates another radical idea; about divorce. The word at the time meant “to throw out”. It was a one way ticket; the man could just toss his wife out on the street with no means of support and have no rights to any of his property; there was no concept of shared property.  Paul says even this, divorce, should be made equal; again a radical idea since there was no such thing in the relationships between men and women, even in marriage. Paul said divorce can be not only equally applied, but can be based on spirituality:

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” Corinthians 7:10-16

Paul in his letters, advocated more equality between men and women, both in public and in marriage, not less. In polytheistic pagan times women were for sex and breeding, to be tossed out, discarded, at the whim of the man.

Before people like York and others venture into the realm of using religion, and especially Christianity, to insult and demean, perhaps they should know a little bit about what they’re talking about.  

Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair magazine and author of the book The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?

"A woman who pursues an entire career she hates the idea of, just because her husband told her to, is not a woman who should be occupying the Oval Office--or anything remotely near it."

"Given the insistence of Christian theology on male supremacy, female candidates who put that religion front and center in their campaigns should be required to explain what that means in terms of how they would govern, if elected."

Bennetts obviously knows nothing of Christian Theology or History. If she did, she wouldn’t make such an ignorant statement. Anti Christian bigotry is to be expected of people like York and Bennetts, though I’m always amazed at the misogyny of Leftist women.  

When Sarah Palin said she read C S Lewis, that he was one of her favorite writers, some commentators went off on how she read children’s books, implying that was the limit of her intellectual growth. York, Chris Wallace, and others that say the submission question was valid, wallow in similar ignorance.  

Some Exemplary Examples of Leftist Civility, Setting a Fine Example for Rest of Us

Mike Malloy

Even ten days after the Arizona Shooting, this knucklehead Lib Radio Talk Show Host, Mike Malloy is spewing hatred and violence and blaming the shootings on Conservative Personalities.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQlSxqPSD4
As if that's not disgusting enough, a guy, Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee at the shooting, has said this:

"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center."

Plus, according to the NY Post, Fuller had visited the home of a neighbor of murderer Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive Loughner.

Just a couple examples of Leftist “civility”, the lack of which from Conservatives caused the murderer to do what he did. Of course it turns out that Loughner was a drug taking insane looser that care not a whit about politics.

Thank you civil Leftists, for being such a shining example of correct behavior.