News Intelligence Analysis

 

 

Outing Creeping Dominionism

A Response to an Evangelical’s Attack

By Katherine Yurica

May 12, 2006

 

The truth of an idea is not a stagnant
property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea.
It becomes true, is made true by events.

 William James

 

Why it’s Wrong to say: “Dominionism Doesn’t Exist”

 

 As Stanley Kurtz did before him, Michael Hamblin, (who identifies himself as an Evangelical Christian), opens his discussion of my essay “The Despoiling of America” with several bold and powerful assertions that if true, would justifiably turn any intelligent reader against me and my essay. He wrote:

 

“For those who are willing to do fact checking and investigate beneath the surface, it becomes quite clear that Dominionism is the creation not of the Religious Right and its fringes, but of progressive secularists looking to portray a caricatured scare-crow of Christianity in the worst possible light.”

  

It seems appropriate to quote C. S. Lewis’s animadversion, “After a man has said that, why need one tend to anything he has to say on any subject?”

 

I’ve never met Michael Hamblin, but I’ve read a small portion of his blog and learned that he and his roommate recently had to move from one apartment to another and it was quite a burdensome undertaking for them. By his description I guessed that he is rather young—that he’s not married and doesn’t have children. I of course don’t state that as a fact—it’s a mere conjecture. However, there are some things we know about Mr. Hamblin. We know, for example that he was reared in a fundamentalist church and that he admirably disliked the legalistic rules that functioned in that church as a form of domination over women. We know this because he wrote the following:

 

“I make little secret of the fact that I grew up in a church that can be properly called Fundamentalist. This church was fiercely independent and did not consider itself to be Evangelical. They called themselves ‘Fundamentalist’ and wore the term as a badge of honor.

“However, they also tended to promote a stricter, more legalistic, and in some ways more traditional view of gender roles. This view over-emphasized the male headship in a way that tended to put an excess of rules upon women and gave them less freedom. This is the view that Wayne Grudem describes as ‘male dominance,’ an errant interpretation of gender relationships that neglects checks on male power by insisting that whatever a man says goes without question, and that the wife is to submit to the man’s will regardless of the situation.” [1]

While I am glad to see that Mr. Hamblin rejects this form of domination within the churches, he would have to acknowledge, I think, that the issue of male domination as a topic of importance does exist in the churches in one form or another and that in acknowledging its existence, he is in no way conjuring up a “progressive secularists caricature of Christianity.” Nor is he conjuring up a conspiracy theory! Michael Hamblin was merely stating facts that he personally observed.

 

 Similarly, that was what I did. Yet in fact, I did much more: I tape recorded the statements of leading evangelical and fundamentalist leaders in the 1980’s, transcribed their words and am able to attest to what they said and what their plan was in order for “Christians” to achieve control of all the elective offices in the United States. I placed quote marks around the word Christian because in fact, the religious right (also known as Dominionist) leaders excluded most of Christendom from their plans—they made it clear that only certain kinds of Christians need apply to run for political office and be considered “Christians.” But I’m getting a little ahead of the story. Let’s follow Mr. Hamblin’s order of business.  

 

Mr. Hamblin’s First Argument: “In Denial”

 

The first argument Mr. Hamblin presents against the facts in “The Despoiling of America” is this:

 

 “It is important to note that the term ‘Dominionism’ is practically non-existent in Evangelical literature.” (Emphasis added by YR)

 

Then Mr. Hamblin sites as his evidence:

 

“[M]y own rather sizeable library… [my] church’s library, the library at Dallas Theological Seminary…the McDermott library on the secular campus of the University of Texas at Dallas….”

 

Then Mr. Hamblin concludes:

 

“The term ‘Dominionist’ is all but non-existent prior to 2000.”

 

So what’s wrong with Mr. Hamblin’s reasoning?

 

First, he tells his readers that he has found negative evidence: he has found the non-existence of literature on the term narrowed down to only this:  “Dominionism.” Therefore he concludes: it does not exist. The problem is he violates the rules of evidence that every good historian follows by instinct—that is not to say that Mr. Hamblin is an historian, but he does call his work an “investigation.” [2]  In fact, Mr. Hamblin has committed a common fallacy.

 

David Hackett Fischer has given us the most comprehensive analysis of scores of common fallacies found in the writings of historians and critics. His book Historians’ Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (1970, Harper and Row) codifies those fallacies. Mr. Hamblin violates The Rule of Affirmation:

 

Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. Fischer says:

 

‘The nonexistence of an object is established not by non-existent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, could not exist….If proof of this sort cannot be found, then the point cannot be proved, and an historian must candidly accept uncertainty.” [3]

 

The argument that because there is no evidence of X, not-X is the case, has been traditionally called the fallacy ex silentio, Fischer calls it the fallacy of the negative proof. [4]

 

Another point is that Mr. Hamblin has apparently forgotten about other words and synonyms like dominance, dominion, domination or even the words: power or subdue. In his denial, he has overlooked the whole world of a creeping political movement.

 

 

How Did Dominionists Get Their Name?

 

 

In order to define what Dominionism is, it’s necessary to quote how the variations of the word were used by the founders and their followers. However, Mr. Hamblin would have us ignore the historical role played by the originators and by a dozen or so religious right figures who embraced the concept of Dominionism and spread it throughout America. [5] That’s tantamount to arguing that it is wrong to write about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and other founding fathers of America—today—because they have long since ceased to be relevant to any discussion on today’s interpretation of the history of the American Revolution.

 

So where did the idea of taking dominion over others come from and what authority did people have to use it?

 

This may surprise some, but the basis for the doctrine of Dominionism was dug out of the Bible by its founders, starting with the term “dominion” at Genesis 1:28 (also in 1:26):

 

“And God said unto them, [Adam and Eve] Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion …over every living thing…”  (Emphasis added)

 

Scofield, a favorite biblical commentator among fundamentalists, calls this verse “the divine Magna Charta,” authorizing as it does man’s mastery over the earth and every living thing. [6] (This interpretation has enormous implications for our environment among adherents in the Republican Party.) However, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word “dominion” broader, in a modern political sense:

 

“a supremacy in determining and directing the actions of others or in governing politically, socially, or personally.”

 

 

How Dominionism is Destroying the Moral Fiber of America 

R. J. Rushdoony 

 

Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony (1917-2001) is the man who is credited with writing and inspiring the religious doctrines that provided a new theological basis for regressive economics and politics that would counter traditional Christian progressive thought. In short, Rushdoony is the man who founded Christian Reconstructionism, of which Dominionism is a basic concept.

 

According to Edd S. Noel, Associate Professor of Economics at Westmont College, Dominionists see Genesis 1:26-28 (partially quoted above) as the “dominion covenant” or contract that applies to the world today. Dominionists understand this “in terms of bringing the whole world under the rule of God’s law.” [7]Professor Noel also tells us, “The teachings of Christian Reconstructionism have been increasingly influential in recent years for evangelicals advocating social policy in various mainline denominations and independent churches.” [8]

 

The truth is Dominionism “cuts across denominational lines” and is “an outgrowth of Calvinism. [9] We will examine exactly how Dominionism became stealthily popular shortly, but first let’s look at the founder.

 

R. J. Rushdoony used the word dominion often in his writings. (Citing Genesis 1:26, 27, and 28 as his authority.) Below are samples of his use of the term from his book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, published in 1973. [10] Rushdoony’s language is important for it shows how his ideas were picked up by others, which we will examine.

 

1. Vice Regents of God: “The earth thus was created to be God’s kingdom, and man was created in God’s image to be God’s vice-regent over that realm under God.” [11]

 

2. Dominionism is a Cultural Mandate: “The cultural mandate is thus the obligation of covenant man to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it under God (Gen. 1:26-28) …All enemies of Christ in this fallen world must be conquered.” [12]
 

3. Submit or Be Crushed: “If men are not regenerated by Christ, and if they will not submit to His calling, to the cultural mandate, they will be crushed by His power.” [13] 

 

4. Biblical Law & Dominion A Basic Urge of Man’s Nature: “The purpose of regeneration is to re-establish man in his creation mandate, to exercise dominion and to subdue the earth. The purpose of the law is to give man the God-appointed way to dominion. [14]….Man was created to exercise dominion under God and as God’s appointed vice-regent over the earth. Dominion is thus a basic urge of man’s nature.” [15]

 

5. Submit and Inherit the Earth: “The purpose of the new Adam is to undo the work of the fall, restore man as covenant keeper, make of man again a faithful citizen of the Kingdom of God, and enable man again to fulfill his calling to subdue the earth under God and to restore all things to God’s law and dominion. Those who submit to this calling and dominion inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5) [16] 

 

“The meek are the redeemed whom God has burdened, oppressed, and broken to harness, so that they are tamed and workable. (Emphasis added.) [17] 

 

6. Tangible Assets are an Aspect of Dominion: “It is very necessary therefore to recognize that the urge to dominion is God-given and is basic to the nature of man. An aspect of this dominion is property…The Scripture, however, places property in the hands of the family, not the state. It gives property to man as an aspect of his dominion, as a part of his godly subduing of the earth.” [18]

 

There are two observations I want to emphasize about Rushdoony’s quotes here, plus one that isn’t expressly mentioned above:

 

First is the tortured reasoning in Number 5 above, where Rushdoony’s argument is based on the famous beatitude of Jesus, Matthew 5:5, “Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.” What Rushdoony really means is something quite different from what is written in the Bible. To paraphrase Rushdoony: those who are called to dominate are meek if they accept their calling to dominate, and those who submit to the powerful and support their domination are meek through their submission to power and thus both those who dominate and those who submit inherit the earth! (Incidentally, this argument fits nicely with the argument Justice Antonin Scalia made regarding Romans 13: 1-7 and the necessity for Christians to obey the authorities.)

 

Secondly, notice how Rushdoony introduces the right to private property in Number 6. Property is God’s reward for “subduing the earth.” In actual fact, Rushdoony goes far beyond this; he wrote:

 

“The word property, once one of the most highly regarded words in the English language, has come in recent years to have a bad connotation because of the deliberate assault on the concept by socialists…. But the word property should be regarded instead as a very highly possessive and affectionate term rather than a cold one…For example, St. Paul makes it clear that husband and wife, with respect to sex, have a property right in one another…Even more, it can be said that a man holds his wife as his property, and his children also.” [19]

 

And lastly, I have to point out that Rushdoony taught that the male urge to dominate women is God ordained. What’s more, he illustrates this with a discussion of the behavior of animals, which he said applies equally to humans! [20]

 

In sum, Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law, defined Christian Reconstruction as:

 

“A recently articulated philosophy which argues that it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ.” [21]

 

It’s unmistakably clear that Rushdoony and those who succeeded him believed the “elect of God” should be governing the world. Incidentally, Rushdoony also found the concept of dominion in the writings of St. Paul in the New Testament. [22] Professor Noell tells us Rushdoony’s work seeks to “develop the implications of Biblical law for modern economic and political institutions.” [23]

 

 

Enter Capitalism vs. Humanitarianism:

 

 

Others before Rushdoony derived biblical principles for application in our daily lives. (In fact, before I studied Rushdoony or knew of his primer, I wrote a primer demonstrating how George W. Bush violated basic biblical principles in my essay and book, Bloodguilty Churches.) Most Christians have always read the New Testament through the eyes of Jesus as he focused on the poor and needy and Jesus’ statement that the whole of the law is fulfilled in two principles from the law. [24] Not Rushdoony.

 

It is Rushdoony’s insertion of “free enterprise capitalism” onto the fabric of the scriptures that enabled him to convert Christianity into a tool that serves the purposes of regressive conservatism. It is at once alarming and revealing of the ingenuity and source of power behind the spreading acceptance of dominionism.

 

In fact, the combining of conservative economics with edicts that appear to be out of the mouth of God, may be seen as one of the most brilliant and powerful political concepts ever written. Rushdoony has empowered the greedy as no man has ever done: he’s made greed a virtue! In fact, conservative economic teachings wrapped in the authority of scripture may explain the reason Howard Ahmanson, Jr. has financially supported Chalcedon, Rushdoony’s foundation. Here’s how Rushdoony turns Christianity upside down:

 

“The means to lawful wealth is the covenant law, the law of God. Capitalization is thus a radical and total task. Man must seek to subdue the earth and gain wealth as a means of restitution and restoration, as means of establishing God’s dominion in every realm. Wherever godly men establish their superior productivity and gain wealth, they thereby glorify God. Wealth in itself is good, and a blessing of the Lord.” [25] (Emphasis is in the text.)

 

Rushdoony cleverly contrasts God’s way—that is free enterprise—with “ecclesiastical socialists” who according to him, “deny that there is Biblical warrant for private property.” [26] Railing at “fallen man’s exercise of dominion” and calling it “demonic,” [27] Rushdoony claimed that our government’s taxation of property is theft:

 

“Theft can be accomplished by indirect and legal means, i.e., by passing a law which steals from the rich, the poor, or the middle-classes, for the benefit of a particular group. The state then becomes the agency whereby theft is accomplished, and a pseudo-moral cover is given by legal enactment.” [28]

 

Rushdoony championed “great corporations” thusly:

 

“It is easy for those who advocate changes damaging to private property to document the evils and the sins of great corporations, wealthy men, and of social orders in which these predominate, but it is at least equally easy to document the sins of the poor as of the wealthy, to cite the evils of a worker as of a capitalist, and to call attention to the depravity of the reformers.” [29]

 

Rushdoony railed at the distribution or dispersion of the “social power of property” (read wealth) in favor of the powerless to be an example of humanism—an “exaltation of man’s need above God’s law.” [30] (One is tempted to ask, whatever happened to the concept of loving one’s neighbor as oneself.)

 

Perhaps one of the more interesting doctrines is Rushdoony’s interpretation of “theft” as “essentially the robbing of a man’s freedom.” [31]“Property” he said, “is basic to man’s freedom.”  Just in case his reader didn’t get it, Rushdoony finally says it: “The implication is clearly that property is freedom.” (Emphasis mine.)

 

He drives the point further:

 

“A tyrannical state always limits a man’s use of his property, taxes it, or confiscates that property as an effective means of enslaving a man without necessarily touching his person.” [32]

 

In other words, in Rushdoony’s lexicon, a man is not free unless he owns property! Listen to Rushdoony again:

 

“The old word freeman has as one of its older meanings the member of a corporation, a property owner. The same is true of the word freeholder. The restriction of suffrage to property owners had as its basis in part the restriction of the vote to freemen.” [33]

 

By equating “property” with freedom, Rushdoony opened a whole new world which may explain the underlying meaning of George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural address where he used the words “freedom,” “free,” and “liberty” 49 times! (I should note here, that it is entirely possible that George W. Bush is a secret Christian Reconstructionist, whose idea of exporting “freedom” to other countries begins with the call to convert America to “freedom,” as he stated in his Second Inaugural. And then to reconstruct the American government as well as the governments of all other nations into an extremely regressive ‘biblical’ form of capitalism, marked by the destruction of all government health, education, social security, and welfare programs for the poor!)

 

Notice how Rushdoony asserted that public education transgresses the “law of freedom” and is an example of “theft”:

 

“The state does transgress this law [of freedom] not only by acts of confiscation, manipulation of money, and by taxation, but also by any and every undercutting of Biblical faith and education. State supported and controlled education is theft, not only in its taxation plan, but also by virtue of its destruction of public character, so that a godly society is turned into a thieves’ market.” [34]

 

Here are a few more of Rushdoony’s political and economic policies, ostensibly derived from the Ten Commandments, a few of which have become written, either in whole or in part, into the 2004 Texas Republican Party Platform (marked with an asterisk):

 

*Urges elimination of Eminent Domain. “It is a divine right. It belongs to God alone.” [35] 


*Redistribution of wealth to take care of the poor is theft and therefore welfare programs should be dismantled. Assistance to the poor should be through neighbors. [36] 


*A number of taxes should be abolished. Taxes have to be the same for all men. (That is a single tax rate for all). [37] 


*Property taxes should be abolished. [38] 


*Eliminate the right to strike. [39] 


*No minimum wage laws. [40] 


An employer has the property right to prefer whom he will, in terms of color, creed, race or national origin. [41] 


The maximum length of debt is six years. [42] 


Restoration ought to be the basic function of courts—not punishment but restoration. In cases where a criminal is unable to make restitution, bond-service should be mandatory. [43] 

 

Enter Gary North

In Defense of Lies, Bribery and Deceit:

 

Gary North, Rushdoony’s protégé and son-in-law has done extensive writing on economics. Rushdoony often cited North as his source. Consider the following economic policies advocated by Gary North and the Reconstructionists:

 

A return to the gold standard.

Privatization of money.

Elimination of all state or federal charters for banks.

Free enterprise capitalism.

Implementation of a proportional (single tax rate) income tax system.

Dismantling of the state-funded, state-mandated welfare system for the poor with assistance provided only through private means from neighbors. [44] 

 

The Ends Justify the Means, “Biblically Speaking.”

 

However North also wrote three essays that were included in R. J. Rushdoony’s treatise, The Institutes of Biblical Law as appendices. The fifth appendix is by North and is titled, “In Defense of Biblical Bribery.” [45] This essay could be considered North’s “Christian extension of Machiavelli.”

 

It begins with an interesting discussion of Rahab’s lie that saved the lives of two Israelite spies in the city of Jericho. In addition to pointing out that Rahab’s lie was considered justified in the Bible, North says that Rahab also committed treason against her own government in God’s cause. He reasons that treason was also justified because Rahab’s country was “evil.” This line of thinking begins to have obvious parallels to America today. If one believes that America must be “restored” to the true stewards of God and to their regent government through a great restoration, and that the government is still being run largely by “fallen men,” (other than the Republicans), then even treason is excusable!

 

Then North asks, “Would a pastor in an American pulpit ever preach on the legitimacy of a Christian’s offering a bribe to a state official under certain circumstances?” [46]

 

North then points out, “What the Bible condemns is the taking of bribes, since it is assumed that godly men will enforce God’s laws without payoffs. A bribe may not be accepted for one’s own personal profit, either for perverting justice or for administering justly. But the Bible nowhere condemns the giving of bribes in order to impede the progress of apostate governments.” [47] (Emphasis is in the text.)

 

North offers this scenario of justification:

 

“On the other hand, to the extent that any Christian’s position in any period of time should resemble the plight of the Christians under Roman rule, then he should take heed. Under the rule of a Hitler or a Stalin, the Christian’s proper response is outward subservience. He should bribe the dictator’s lieutenants, lie if necessary, join a Christian underground, and gain freedom of action through the lies and bribes to continue preaching and publishing.” [48]

 

North concludes:

 

“We pay the bribe until the day that God’s adversaries lose power, but not one day longer.” [49]

 

I have to ask this, since never in my lifetime have I seen so many scandals of corruption and bribery taking place in American politics by Republican right-wingers, if North’s teachings are at work? I don’t know the answer, but we Americans need to start thinking about this.

 

Is there any doubt that Gary North and the Dominionists consider the various governments and judiciary in the U.S.A. to be apostate, whether they are state, county or federal unless they control them? This brings up one more problem concerning what we can expect if the judiciary is taken over by judges who subscribe to Rushdoony’s “biblical law.” What happens if the Dominionists gain total power? North tells us:

 

“It should not lead us to believe that the Christian attitude toward an enemy of God ought to be one of perpetual forgiveness and unending toleration when Christians have the power and authority legally to prosecute and convict him. If Christians, as God’s people should be given the power of the sword, then the adversaries of God should take seriously the warning of Matthew 5: 25 [50] : let them agree with the Christian, lest for their outward lawlessness in disagreeing, the Christian should see to it that righteous judgment be applied in a civil suit, and the adversaries be severely punished.” (Emphasis in text.) [51]

 

 

How Did Rushdoony’s Teachings Spread?

 

 

While Rushdoony remained a relatively obscure person, his influence is extensive. In addition to the theme of Dominionism, many of the economic policies were endlessly hacked by television evangelists like Pat Robertson. But Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism did not create a large new denomination among American Protestants. Nevertheless, it spawned a formidable political movement when variations on Rushdoony’s Dominionism caught on in the churches. [52] Rushdoony, himself, was named to the first Council for National Policy, [53] which at the least indicates he was well known among the politically oriented leaders of the religious right. Yet these leaders, from Tim LaHaye to Pat Robertson were themselves well known and held formidable platforms from which to proclaim Rushdoony’s ideas. Kevin Phillips, the author of the recently published, American Theocracy, tells us:

 

“One recent scholarly analysis updated evangelical economic thinking to include the role of televangelists, specifically Falwell and Robertson, in upholding ‘a marriage between religion and American capitalism’ during the 1980s.” [54]

 

To understand how Rushdoony’s teachings crept into the Pentecostal or “charismatic” churches and into evangelical churches, let’s take another look at the definition of who is a “dominionist.”

 

In the preface to my book, Bloodguilty Churches, (Published in January, 2005) I wrote, “Dominionism in its broadest sense believes [or teaches] that ‘Christians’ have a right to dominate and rule over others.” [55]

 

Frederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, said recently that a dominionist is “one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.” [56] In his own essay Clarkson states that there are three elements common to followers:

 

1. “Dominionists celebrate Christian Nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy. [Emphasis and capitalization added here and below.]

 

 

2. “Dominionists promote Religious Supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

 

 

3. “Dominionists endorse Theocratic Visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or “biblical law,” should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.”

 

 

These definitions of Dominionism are instructive because they are based upon the beliefs, actions, precepts and testimony of those who are categorized. In other words, the term Dominionism is a descriptive term and is not meant to be pejorative.

 

But we can forgive Mr. Hamblin if he in fact has never heard of Dominion theology. Kevin Phillips, a former Republican strategist, writes in his new book:

 

“Most Americans, having never heard of Christian Reconstructionism, likely assume it has only fringe status.” [57]

 

“Not so,” says Phillips and the experts on the issue of its alleged “fringe status.” According to Phillips, Dominionism has been trickled down to the pews through radio and television, the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Promise Keepers, the Christian Coalition and in the words of a leading proponent of Dominion theology, the doctrines have penetrated into the Protestant circles with people unaware of the source. [58]

 

Greg Loren Durand, a former Christian Reconstructionist, adds to the list: “Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, his Christian Broadcasting Network and Regent College, Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue, Howard Phillips’ Constitution Party (formerly, the U.S. Taxpayers Party) and David Barton’s Wallbuilders, Inc.” 

 

Enter Pat Robertson

 

If Rushdoony’s quotes of the Genesis verses didn’t illicit much excitement in the American Protestant religious world, Pat Robertson’s version of his teachings did! Robertson rocked American Christendom by popularizing Rushdoony’s teachings (but of course, without crediting Rushdoony. Robertson instead credited a conversation with God.) [59]

 

Not only did Robertson have his television show as a platform, he published books that reached the bestseller’s list. In fact he wrote about Dominionism. There is an entire chapter titled, “The Law of Dominion,” in his best seller, The Secret Kingdom, first published in 1982 and with five printings by 1984.[60] And what is more, the book won the Religious Book of the Year award. [61] Keep in mind that Robertson’s 700 Club topped the Nielsen ratings at the time with a projected monthly audience of 28.7 million viewers! That is not a fringe group!

 

In referring to the verses in Genesis, Robertson [62] paralleled the words of Rushdoony that I quoted above:

 

1. God’s People Are to be Regents Over the Earth: “Almighty God wants us to recapture the dominion man held in the beginning… Remember, at the time of creation man exercised authority, under God’s sovereignty, over everything. He was God’s surrogate, His steward or regent.

 

2. Dominion over Others Originates in the Bible: “The genesis account uses two colorful words to describe this. One… we translate ‘dominion. The word means to ‘rule over’ or ‘tread down,’ as with grapes…

 

3. Man Was Told to Subdue or ‘Trample the Earth’: “The other word…is translated ‘subdue.’ Man was told to subdue the earth. The root means ‘to trample under foot,’ as one would do when washing dirty clothes. Therefore… we have in part the concept of separating good from evil by force.

 

4. God Gave Man the Power to Govern and the Right to Subdue: “With the first word …God gives man the authority to govern all that is willing to be governed. With the second…He grants man authority over the untamed and the rebellious. In both instances, God gave man a sweeping and total mandate of dominion over this planet and everything in it.

 

5. God Intended the World to be Governed and Subdued by the Godly: “….God’s intention was that His world be governed and subdued by those who themselves were governed by God.

 

6, God Demands His People to Invest Their Capital: “Despite our preconceived attitudes toward social justice, God’s Law of Use controls the ultimate distribution of wealth. We must be willing to take the world as He made it and live in it to the fullest…

 

[Citing Matthew 25: 26-30, Robertson paraphrased the Bible, speculating about the means used by the servants] “Perhaps he bought some commodities, sold them at a profit, and reinvested the entire amount…Regardless, he worked with his master’s money and eventually doubled it. [63]

 

“…. It is clear that God is saying, ‘I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion over the earth and will subdue Satan, the unruly, and the rebellious. Take back my world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.”

 

(To see Pat Robertson’s words juxtaposed to Rushdoony’s in parallel columns, click here.)

 

Pat Robertson took his ideas of dominion to his television audience on the 700 Club show.  On May 1, 1986 Robertson told his audience:

 

“God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen, to take dominion…What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him…but He’s waiting for us to…extend His dominion…And the Lord says, ‘I’m going to let you redeem society. There’ll be a reformation….We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘we want freedom in this country, and we want power…’” [64]

 

 

Over a period of months, Pat Robertson outlined how Christians could gain control of their government. I have summarized this from the transcribed 700 Club shows in my excerpts from The New Messiahs:

 

1) The first goal was to gain control of the Republican party and then through the GOP, gain control of Congress.

 

2) The second goal was to revamp the balance of powers between the three branches of government, so that the judiciary would be weakened permanently and the power of Congress would be strengthened—if it were controlled by the religious right.

    

3) Similarly, the third goal involved the power of the presidency, which was to be variously weakened when an unacceptable person occupied the White House, but strengthened when a “God-anointed man” was in office.

    

4) The fourth goal was to gain the power to control domestic morality by denouncing the “immoral” and by “breaking” individuals and organizations such as the National Education Association [NEA].  In fact one of the goals of the movement is to destroy public education in America altogether.

 

But Robertson did more than just talk about politics. He called on the 30,000 churches who were members of his Freedom Council to aid in the first step of his plan for power. [65] Quietly “Christian” political action committees like Political Christian Unity were set up. Keep in mind that political observers pointed out that by 1986, Robertson had already built the most powerful political organization in America. In 1988 Robertson jumped into the political arena and made a run for the presidency himself.

 

In 1989, (one year after he was defeated in his run for president) Robertson created the Christian Coalition PAC and appointed Ralph Reed to head it. Reed predicted that by 2000, the coalition would have 10 trained activists in all 175,000 political precincts nationwide. That was 1.75 million activists. Robertson then set up a political training camp in Virginia Beach, Virginia. By 1994 the Christian Coalition had taken control of state GOP organizations in Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia, Texas, Iowa, Washington and South Carolina. After the 1994 congressional elections, for the first time in 40 years, the GOP took control of Congress, with 44 of the 52 new Republicans in the House owing their victories to the support of the Christian Coalition (and pro-life groups).

 

The religious right also gained control of the Republican Party apparatus in at least 31 states. The Christian Coalition saw its numbers multiplying: they had sponsored 83 Citizen Action Training Schools across America to teach Christians how to get elected. They established 375 new chapters of the Coalition in all 50 states. (That brought the total number of Christian Coalition chapters to 872 with more than 900,000 members, distributed 40 million voter guides and 20 million Congressional Scorecards. By 1996, the Coalition reported that it had sponsored 400 Citizen Action Training Schools. 

 

Jerry Falwell also aided the plan to field religious right candidates against incumbent congressmen. Falwell created a new political group spun off from the Moral Majority called Liberty Federation in January of 1986. The goal according to Falwell was to register one million new voters and field 200 people who would run for office. “By 1988,” Falwell said, “we hope to deliver 20 million religious conservatives to the polls.”

 

Before we leave this issue, let me hasten to say, the spread and popularization of Dominionism was not limited to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, it included leading evangelicals and fundamentalists: Billy Graham, Tim LaHaye as well as Falwell, Francis Schaeffer and even Chuck Colson, all of whom appeared on Robertson’s 700 Club and their words were tape recorded by this reporter and transcribed. (Although I use some of these quotes in “The Despoiling of America,” and elsewhere, it is worthwhile to insert them here as a reminder of what the leadership of the Religious Right endorsed.)

 

On September 25, 1985, Tim LaHaye, appeared in a film clip with Phyllis Schlafly on the show. In that clip, he laid out the plan to take over the government of the United States. He said: 

 

“Suppose that every Bible believing church—all 110,000—decided to…raise up one person to run for public office and win… If every church in the next ten years did that, we would have more Christians in office than there are positions…there are only 97,000 elective offices.”

 

 

The appeal to evangelicals went further. On April 29, 1985, Billy Graham, the respected and world famous evangelist, told Pat Robertson’s audience on the 700 Club show that:

 

“[T]he time has come when evangelicals are going to have to think about getting organized corporately….I’m for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government. I think if we leave it to the other side we’re going to be lost. I would like to see every true believer involved in politics in some way shape or form.” 

 

On the April 24, 1986, 700 Club broadcast Pat Robertson gave a hearty “Amen” to this statement by Jerry Falwell: 

 

“There are 110,000 Bible believing churches in America. There are 400,000 churches, but 110,000 believe in the inerrancy of scriptures and believe in world evangelization and preaching of the Gospel. Now these 110,000 [are] 40 to 50 million Americans [who] possess the ability of changing the spiritual, the social and the political scene in this country forever, and of affecting a world changing thing, in my opinion, just before the Lord Jesus comes to take us out.” 

 

Charles Colson said:

 

“It always has been a conflict between the kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. When you really look at what Jesus is saying, He is saying the time is fulfilled, repent and believe, the kingdom is at hand. And He is calling for the kingdom of God to rule over the affairs of man. And so inevitably there’s going to be a conflict.” (The 700 Club May 21, 1986.)

 

With such an impressive list of endorsers, Pat Robertson was riding high and with high hopes for the presidency. However, Charles Stanley, a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, publicly cautioned Robertson on the eve of the all important Michigan delegate vote. He said, “I think we have to be careful that we do not leave the impression that we are trying to take over the nation and control it, but simply to bear a Godly influence to offset so much of what is ungodly.” [66] Stanley’s caution may explain why the precepts of “Dominionism” were dropped from the public forum.

 

 

Francis Schaeffer

 

 

In 1982 Francis Schaeffer gave a speech at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The speech was based on his book A Christian Manifesto, which was published in 1981. In it he declared, “What we are facing is Humanism: Man, the measure of all things—viewing final reality being only material or energy shaped by chance—therefore, human life having no intrinsic value—therefore, the keeping of any individual life or any groups of human life, being purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.”

 

Schaeffer warned:

 

“We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. Not, first of all, because of the Humanist conspiracy—I believe that there are those who conspire…This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians…have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!”

 

“There is no other word we can use for our present situation that I have just been describing, except the word TYRANNY! [67]

 

 

Although Francis Schaeffer had denied that he was in favor of a theocracy, in 1982 he appeared on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson. The show was repeated on July 7, 1986.  He warned, “The enemy is this other view of reality,” Schaeffer spoke emotionally. Citing the Declaration of Independence as his authorizing document, he said:

 

“Today we live in a humanist society. They control the schools. They control public television. They control the media in general. And what we have to say is we live in a humanist society….[Because] the courts are not subject to the will of the people through elections or re-election… all the great changes in the last forty years have come through the courts. And what we must get in our mind is the government as a whole, but especially the courts, has become the vehicle to force this view on the total population, even if the total population doesn’t hold the view.”[16]

 

 Schaeffer claimed that the major “titanic changes” to America occurred since 1942:

 

“If you don’t revolt against tyranny and this is what I call the bottom line, is that not only do you have the privilege but [you have] the duty to revolt. When people force upon you and society that which is absolutely contrary to the Word of God, and which really is tyranny…we have a right to stand against it as a matter of principle. And this was the basis upon which the founding fathers built this country.”

 

Tim LaHaye

 

However, it was Tim LaHaye, who was among the first religious right leaders to popularize Dominionism. LaHaye credits Francis Schaeffer as his inspiration. [68] But that “inspiration” led him to publish an extremely vitriolic book, The Battle for the Mind in 1980. [69]

 

In introducing his readers to their prime enemy, he warned:

 

“[U]nless …Christians wake up to who the enemy really is, the humanists will accomplish their goal of a complete world takeover by the year 2,000.” [70]

 

Again he wrote:

 

“No humanist is qualified to hold any governmental office in America—United States senator, congressman, cabinet member, State Department employee, or any other position that requires him to think in the best interest of America…” [71]

 

How many elected officials does Tim LaHaye want to get out of office?

 

 “A humanist is just not qualified to be elected to public office by patriotic, America-loving citizens. The major problems of our day—moral, educational, economical, and governmental—are primarily caused by the fact that over 50 percent of our legislators are either committed humanists or are severely influenced in their thinking by the false theories of humanism….

 

“If Christ’s church becomes sufficiently aroused to the fact that humanism is currently winning the battle for the mind, she will awaken the other millions of pro-moral Americans, and together they will vote their amoral humanist overlords out of office and replace them with traditional, pro-moral leaders.” [72]

 

He wrote that Christians who are humanists are not “true” Christians. [73] And it was in this book he laid out the plan that was finessed into his famous statement on Robertson’s 700 Club. In his book, he wrote it this way:

 

 

“It is time that the 110,000 faithful ministers from every Bible-believing denomination in our country lead the 60 million Christians to vote out of office every devotee of humanism and every politician naïve enough to vote for humanist programs. For example, every office holder in our land—local, state, and national—regardless of party, who votes for or advocates the following, should be voted out of office:

 

“Abortion-on-demand

“Equal Rights Amendment

“Decriminalization of prostitution

“Approval of homosexuality and lesbianism

“Leniency on pornography

“Child’s rights over parents’ rights

“Legalizing of marijuana

“Gambling

“National weakness through disarmament

 

“If the majority of Americans, whether religious or not, favor a pro-moral society in which to raise their family, they will replace humanized thinkers in government. Then laws can be passed that will safeguard the moral fiber of our land and return our nation to its former status as the most powerful nation on earth.” [74]

 

If this were not enough to demonstrate that the doctrine of Dominionism was being digested by millions of Christians since the early 1980’s, here are two more: 

 


The Christian Home-school Movement and America’s Providential History
 

 

According to Greg Loren Durand, a former Reconstructionist, Rushdoony is often credited with starting the home-school movement. That is easy enough to believe if one reads America’s Providential History, which was published in 1989 by co-authors Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, and went on to become a home school classic. [75] (I have written in another essay that phrases from this book can be traced to Mr. Bush’s second inaugural address.) In the first chapter the authors launch into “God’s Plan for the Nations.” The book introduces a concept called “The Theology of Liberty,” and takes its authority from Matthew 28: 19, using Jesus’ commission which reads in pertinent part in the King James version: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations…” The authors leap to the conclusion that Christians must become involved in a religious/political reformation of the world. They quote Matthew Henry, explaining that he was “studied by our Founding Fathers”:

 

“‘[T]he principal intention of this commission’ is clear. It is to ‘…do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations.’ This is God’s plan for the nations.”

 

The text begins:

 

“The goal of America’s Providential History is to equip Christians to be able to introduce Biblical principles into the public affairs of America, and every nation in the world, and in so doing bring Godly change throughout the world. We will be learning how to establish a Biblical form (and power) of government in America and we will see how our present governmental structures must be changed. Since the principles we will be learning are valid in every society and in any time in history, they will be able to be applied throughout the world and not just in America. As we learn to operate nations on Biblical principles, we will be bringing liberty to the nations of the world and hence fulfilling part of God’s plan for the nations.” (Emphasis mine.)

 

The authors go on to a section titled: “The Need for World Reformation” and state, “The Bible reveals to us that the world longs for liberation.”

 

 “It must be added here that Christians need to be involved in both of the major political parties…The ultimate goal should be for enough Christians to become involved in both major parties so that eventually the candidates on the ballot in November are both of the type that fit into Biblical qualifications.”

 

“If Christians in every locality became a controlling influence in a political party after two years of serving there consistently, then every godly representative in the state legislatures and the Congress could be replaced within six years to work with a godly president.”

 

 “If we work for more godly representatives in 2/3 of the state legislatures then we can bypass Congress and call a new Constitutional Convention to clean up all of the mess we have made of it in the past 200 years! Then with godly state legislatures, the odds are good that delegates appointed by them to a new Convention will be godly and wise as well.”

 

The “mess” the Dominionists want to “clean up” begins with the 14th amendment: “no state shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;’” and includes the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the power to collect progressive taxes on incomes; and the 17th amendment in which senators were no longer appointed by the state legislatures to represent their interests; and the Supreme Court, which, the authors state, “has itself acted unconstitutionally.”

 

The authors then disparage a certain kind of representative, a congressman who is impressed with the number of constituents that are in favor or against a bill he is about to vote on. The authors say:

 

“Even if Christians manage to outnumber others on an issue and we sway our Congressman by sheer numbers, we end up in the dangerous promotion of democracy. We really do not want representatives who are swayed by majorities, but rather by correct principles.” (Emphasis mine.) [76]

 

Would it surprise you to learn given the power of the religious right, that the book and its dissemination is being supplemented by the taxpayers of the United States? The book is published by the Providence Foundation, an organization created by the two authors, and the foundation is organized as a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt organization under the IRS code.

 

 

Dr. James Kennedy

 

Since the 1990’s “leading Reconstructionists” chummed around with Dr. James Kennedy, pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. In fact Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries also employed militant Reconstructionist George Grant as a vice president. [77]

 

But Francis Schaeffer really started something when he gave his speech on “A Christian Manifesto” at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church: D. James Kennedy has held conferences that attract hundreds of believers from all over America ever since then. To get a flavor of a recent event, people attending a “Reclaim America” conference in Florida in February, 2005, received material written by James Kennedy. The material revealed not only how the idea of controlling America has spread, but how seriously the Dominionists take their new role: Kennedy says: 

 

“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy says. “As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.” [78]


Cheryl Forbes and The Religion of Power

 

Also for Mr. Hamblin’s edification, I should point out the topic of subduing or dominating others has also been tackled under synonyms such as the word power. I think of one writer and one book from the 1980’s that accurately examined the increasing exercise of dominion or power in the churches. I am not speaking of Dominionism as spelled out by Robertson, Rushdoony, or Tim LaHaye, instead the book is about the spiritual condition of the churches—it is a picture of the plowed fields as the Dominionist sowers began to drop their seeds.

Cheryl Forbes describes the breadth and depth of the pervasive and corrosive thirst for power over others that existed in the churches of America in her 1983 book, The Religion of Power. [79] Forbes raised this issue: “Have Christians become so infected with the world’s view of power that they are operating the same way and justifying the means to meet the end?” In fact, Forbes placed the American hunger for power in the heart of America’s religious history.

 

What Has Been Accomplished by Dominionists?

 

At this juncture we are faced with the following: the religious right control the GOP, the White House and both houses of congress. They are putting on a massive effort to place dominionist judges into the Federal Court system. In addition to all the factual events I have cited, which add up to a vast religio-political movement, consider the fact that recently a Republican, Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, felt he had to stand up and declare that the Republican Party of Lincoln “has become a party of theocracy.” [80]

Greg Loren Durand wrote, “The Religious Right has become so infiltrated by Reconstructionism that the two have become almost synonymous terms of late.”

As former Republican Senator John Danforth recently said: “Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.”

Kevin Phillips says it this way: “[T]he last two presidential elections mark the transformation of the GOP into the first religious party in U.S. history.” [81]

Even as I write this essay, the Dominionists are in the process of attempting to impose certain religious values upon the majority of Americans. Just consider the recent attempts to legislate God and His laws into the fabric of our legal system with the Constitutional Restoration Act, the Marriage Protection Act, and Amendment, the Terry Schiavo law passed by the GOP Congress, the House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, and the GOP party platforms such as the Texas Republican Party Platform for 2004.

I think even Mr. Hamblin would have to admit that Dominionism is not a new word that just popped up out of nowhere in the year 2000 nor was it created by critics of Christianity. 

 

 

Second Argument: Dominionism Is Nothing More than a Conspiracy Theory?

 

 

There really is no substance to Michael Hamblin’s assertions. As I have already shown, the facts speak for themselves. We have just reviewed more than twenty years of history and events that prove, if anything, the case has been woefully understated. [82] In fact this is how Mr. Hamblin states his accusation: 

 

“Dominionism is nothing short of a massive conspiracy theory on par with the belief that the Tri-lateral Commission or Council on Foreign Relations is working behind the scenes to pull all the strings to control world governments.”

  

But according to Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman in their 1982 book, Holy Terror, the collaboration of the religious right with ultraconservative forces was “no conspiracy.”

 

“The individuals and organizations in the movement are all known, as are most of the interconnections among them. By design, in fact, little has been kept secret.” [83]

 

Conway and Siegelman name three masterminds: Richard A. Viguerie, who was quick to embrace the electronic church as the new right’s ‘own ready-made network’; Paul Weyrich, the architect of the preachers-into-politics movement; and Terry Dolan, the leader of the PACs. [84]

 

According to the authors, Viguerie’s company owned a huge system of computers:

 

“Huddled in …memory banks are the names of 25 million Americans, approximately 4.5 million of whom are known supporters of right-wing causes.

 

“Every year, Viguerie sends 100 million letters to the concerned citizens on his lists, requesting money and other forms of support for the forty different groups he represents. Reportedly, they respond to the tune of almost $15 million.” [85] 

 

Did Michael Hamblin Lie? Does He Practice a Technique to Deny What He Knew to Be True?

  

As I said at the very beginning of this essay, I have never met Michael Hamblin, and I was moved by the intensity and falsity of his remarks about my article, “The Despoiling of America.” Why would someone write that dominionism doesn’t exist? I wondered about him. So I started reading his blog where I found he lives in Texas and has a roommate. So far so good. Then I found a very well-written article titled, “The Problem of Ethical Dualism,” which you may read here. At the end of his article he lists “Related pages and links.” There were only four references, so I looked them all up and read them. When I came to the last one, “Robert Koons: A Conservative Primer,” I was stunned to find the following errors:

 

1. It was listed with the wrong title. The paper is titled, “An Introduction to Conservatism.”

 

2. Though it was listed last, it was in fact the first words Michael Hamblin used for his blog. Without placing quote-marks, he had copied Robert C. Koons’ words: “Ethical dualism is the practice of attributing evil exclusively to a particular group or class of people…” Then he wrote: “Some of the common groups of people or classes that have been the targets of ethical dualism are the nobility, clergy, the bourgeoisie, Jews, or the corporate elite.” Again this was almost identical to Robert C. Koons’ words on page 3 of his paper in the last paragraph.

 

3. One could easily ignore this as an example of someone who meant well but was in a big hurry. But it was the nature of the list of groups singled out as targets that surprised me. We don’t talk about the nobility today in America or the bourgeoisie. Neither are the clergy nor are the corporate elite selected as objects of prejudice. Only the Jews seemed appropriate in the list, and one could wonder why homosexuals, immigrants, and blacks were absent from the list.

 

4. Keep in mind that Michael Hamblin’s attack on my essay included the charge that if one only did a little investigation, one would find that I and other “conspirators” had made up the idea of Dominionism in order to “portray a caricatured scare-crow of Christianity in the worst possible light.”

 

5. When I realized that Michael Hamblin had read Robert C. Koons’ paper, I realized he necessarily had to have known about the dominionist ideas spelled out by Koons—ideas that make Hamblin’s denial of the existence of a powerful religious-right political movement—outright lies. 

 

 

Robert C. Koons’ Paper: “An Introduction to Conservatism”

 

In the tradition of fellow Texan Gary North and the late R. J. Rushdoony, Robert Koons has written an Introduction to Conservatism that blends Christian piety with conservative concepts. In short, Koons blends “Divine Revelation” with politics. By the way, at the time of the publishing, January, 2000, Robert C. Koons was a Senior Fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (a 501 c (3) tax exempt organization) and an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas. He has also been very active with the Seattle based Intelligent Design movement. Here are some excerpts that should sound familiar:

 

“The cosmos is the creation of an infinite God…Human beings have been uniquely chosen to bear the ‘image’ of God, and to act as God’s stewards over the earth and its many forms of life.” (Emphasis added.)

 

“Therefore, conservatives reject the following philosophies….

 

“Atheism and materialism—the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes.”

 

“Secular humanism—that we human beings must define the meaning and purpose of our own existence.

 

“Even today, as bleak as the indicators of social and cultural health may be, we conservatives look forward with hope to a restoration of the family, the community, and a civilized culture.” (Emphasis added.)

 

“Real social, cultural and political progress is possible, but only when conservative ideas predominate….We look to faith-based charities and mutual aid societies that were so successful in improving social conditions in 19th century America to provide proven models for reversing the social decay resulting from a generation of failed leftist programs.” (Emphasis added.)

 

“Under conservative auspices, the laws would be few in number, slow to change, and clear in meaning. Judges, legislators and bureaucrats would not attempt to micromanage the affairs of the household or the firm.

 

“Today, conservatives lead the way toward a restoration of sanity and a reconstruction of society built on the solid foundation of the permanent truths.” (Emphasis added.)

 

Try as I might, I cannot understand how someone who isn’t a Dominionist (or for that matter, a Christian Reconstructionist) could come up with these words and this ideology that clearly excludes everyone else in America and not be a Dominionist himself. While I can’t say for sure, Michael Hamblin may have deliberately lied for the purpose of convincing fellow travelers and unknowing Christians who don’t fully realize that false prophets have seized the political reigns of Christendom and are leading the churches into apostasy.

 

Wake up dear friends. This is a real spiritual, cultural and political war.  

 

 

 


 

 

Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los Angeles College, U.S.C. and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.

Katherine Yurica recorded and transcribed 1,300 pages of Pat Robertson’s television show, The 700 Club covering several years in the mid 1980’s. In 1987 she conducted a study in response to informal inquiries from the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, which was investigating whether television and radio ministries were violating their tax-exempt status by conducting grass roots political appeals, endorsing candidates, and making political expenditures as defined under Section 527 of the IRS code. The Subcommittee on Oversight published Katherine's study in Federal Tax Rules Applicable to Tax-Exempt Organizations Involving Television Ministries on October 6, 1987, Serial 100-43. (Published in 1988.)

 


 

Notes

 


 

[1] http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=34
See also "Why Theocracy Can't Happen Here" by Ernest W. Lefever, Washington Times, May 16, 2005.

 

[2] “In my investigations, it is quite clear that the term ‘Dominionism’ was created by people who wanted a new boo-word to tar politically active Christians…” (Emphasis added).

 

[3] David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Rowe Publishers, 1970) pp. 62, 63, 54.

 

[4] As I recall at one point, historians believed that the ancient Greeks never rode on horseback because there were no pictures or evidence of anyone doing so. This belief was held until an artifact was found that depicted Greeks riding horses!

 

[5] Michael Hamblin’s third argument against “The Despoiling of America” is as follows. He wrote:

 

 “…Dominionist conspiracy theorists seek to find ways to tie people and organizations together into a tight web of sinister activity…This is what [Yurica’s] article does…by dredging up R. J. Rushdoony, a long discredited and marginal voice within Protestantism and a favorite whipping boy of Dominionist conspiracy theorists. An excessive amount of time is spent discussing Pat Robertson, who despite having a very popular following through his 700 Club in the 1980s, today enjoys only a small margin of his former popularity in no small part due to his own senility.”

 

 

[6] The word “dominion” is used 59 times in the King James Version—in both the Old and New Testaments. That’s enough times for the word to be analyzed by a slew of biblical commentators.

 

[7] Edd S. Noell, “A Reformed Approach to Economics: Christian Reconstructionism,” Spring, 1993. Association of Christian Economists. http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristianReconEconomics_NoellS93.pdf

 

[8] Ibid.

 

[9] Walter Olson, “Invitation to a Stoning,” November, 1998. Reason.com.

 

[10] R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973)

 

[11] R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973) pp. 343, 448, 449. Quoted at http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/image.htm

 

[12] Ibid, pp. 724-725. Quoted on the web at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cultman.htm

 

[17] Ibid, page 450.

 

[18] Ibid, pp.450-451. Quoted at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/private.htm

 

[19] Ibid, pp. 174-175.

 

[20] Rushdoony wrote: “Dominion is God’s principle for man over nature (Gen. 1:28) and for the male in the person of the husband and father in the family (1 Cor. 11:1-15).” Read Rushdoony’s  remarks about the Dominion nature of male animals, which he states “are true of human life also.”  At page 201:  http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/primacy.htm

 

[21] Ibid at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/rc.htm From Gary North, Backward Christian Soldiers? An Action Manual for Christian Reconstruction (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), Glossary.

[22] Rushdoony also anchors the dominion concept in the New Testament:

St. Paul, in reminding the Corinthian Christians of their destiny, said, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (I Cor. 6:2). Moffatt renders this, "Do you not know that the saints are to manage the world?" a meaning we do not need to remind ourselves of. Church government is a prelude to world government, not by the church but by "the saints." In trying to establish the necessary church government towards this end, Paul's constant appeal was, not to the form of church government or to the members, but to the law of God and the growth of the saints in terms of it (I Cor. 6:15-9:27). Judging, governing, or managing of the world is in terms of God's law. Because the saints were called to manage or govern the world, very quickly it became their purpose to move into positions of authority and power. R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 773, 742.

 

[23] Edd S. Noell, “A Reformed Approach to Economics: Christian Reconstructionism,” Spring, 1993. Association of Christian Economists. http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristianReconEconomics_NoellS93.pdf

 

[24] Matthew 22: 35-40 “Then one of them who was a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him and saying, ‘Master, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'” (KJV, Scofield edition) This should be compared to Matthew 7:12: “Therefore, all things whatever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” See an interview with Katherine Yurica by Terri Murray, “Can Democracy be Christian?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/CanDemocracyBeChristian.html

 

 

[25] R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973) p. 524.

 

[26] Ibid. p. 450.

 

[27] Ibid. p. 449. Read “fallen man” as everyone else but Dominionists!

 

[28] Ibid. p. 452.  To see how Rushdoony’s teachings were picked up, read the tape recorded transcription of Dr. Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

 

 

[29] Ibid. p. 455.

 

[30] Ibid. p. 456.

 

[31] Ibid, p. 486.

 

[32] Ibid. p. 486.

 

[33] Ibid. p. 488.

 

[34] Ibid. p. 487.

 

[35] Ibid. p. 499.

 

[36] Ibid. p. 452-456.  (See also Edd S. Noell, “A Reformed Approach to Economics: Christian Reconstructionism,” Spring, 1993. Association of Christian Economists.  Noell writes in reference to Gary North’s work. http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristianReconEconomics_NoellS93.pdf )

 

[37] Ibid. p. 492.

 

[38] Ibid. p. 492.

 

[39] Ibid. p. 507.

 

[40] Ibid. p. 508.

 

[41] Ibid. p. 510.

 

[42] Ibid. p. 478.

 

[43] Ibid. p. 515.

 

[44] Edd S. Noell, “A Reformed Approach to Economics: Christian Reconstructionism,” Spring, 1993. Association of Christian Economists. http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristianReconEconomics_NoellS93.pdf

 

[45] R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973) p. 837.

 

[46] Ibid. p. 842.

 

[47] Ibid. p. 842

 

[48] Ibid. p. 845.

 

[49] Ibid. p. 846.

 

[50] Matthew 5:25: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” KJV.

 

[51] R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973) p. 845.

 

[52] Greg Loren Durand, "Judicial Warfare: The Christian Reconstruction Movement and its Blueprints for Dominion," at http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HistoryOfReconstructionMovement.html

 

 

[53] The Council for National Policy (CNP) was founded in 1981 when Timothy LaHaye (author of the Left Behind series) became the organization's first president. LaHaye is credited with the idea of the organization. The CNP has been cloaked in secrecy since its inception. The organization holds three meetings each year to plan the strategy for implementing its agenda. The activists meet with their financial backers who put up the money to execute the agenda of the institution. The membership list and any speeches made to the members are kept in strict secrecy. White House officials have appeared before the group, including President Bush, but their remarks have been held in secrecy. The Yurica Report obtained a list of members from several years prior that reveal the heavy weights in the Christian and hard right dominionist movement. Here is a sample: Gary Bauer, Pat Boone, Grover Norquist, Dr. Gary North and R. J. Rushdoony, Lt. Col. Oliver North, Pat Robertson, James Robinson, Howard J. Ruff, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Phyllis Schlafly, Bob Jones, III, Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, Dr. James Kennedy, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Marlin Maddoux, Peter Marshall, Jr., Dr. James Dobson, Jeffrey Coors, Joseph Coors, Bill Bright, Major General John K. Singlaub, Lt. General Gordon Sumner, Jerry Falwell, Father Charles Fiore, Alan Gottlieb, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, John W. Whitehead, Rev. Donald Wildmon, Pierre du Pont, Ann Drexel, Arnaud deBorchgrave, Richard DeVos, Terry Dolan, Sen. William Dannemeyer, Jesse Helms, etc.

 

[54] Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy, Viking, 2006. At page 249. See also Phillips essay, “Theocons and Theocrats,” at: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheoconsAndTheocrats.html

 

[55] I also pointed out, “However, dominionism does not have a biblical basis because it is a religion of power over others—the antithesis of Jesus’ teachings.” See my book: Yurica, Katherine, Bloodguilty Churches, Erasmus Books, January, 2005, at xiv of the Preface. The book is also available on line at: http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/TheBloodGuiltyChurches.html#anchor228163

 

[56] See Jane Lampmen’s article, “A Mission to Reclaim America,” March 16, 2005; from CBS and the Christian Science Monitor. At: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/MissionToReclaimAmerica.html

 

 

[57] Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy, Viking, 2006. At page 243. See also Phillips essay, “Theocons and Theocrats,” at: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheoconsAndTheocrats.html

 

[58] Ibid.

 

[59] Robertson instead credited God: “I was praying and fasting some years ago, seeking to understand God’s purpose more fully. I heard His voice, level and conversational, “What do I desire for man?” A bit surprised, I replied, “I don’t know, Lord. You know.” “Look at Genesis, and you’ll see,” He said. Genesis is one of the longest books in the Bible, but I opened it at the beginning. In a few moments I read this: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…” page 198 of The Secret Kingdom, by Pat Robertson with Bob Slosser, Bantam edition, April 1984.

 

[60] The Secret Kingdom by Pat Robertson was first published by Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982, followed by four printings through April, 1983, followed by the Bantam Books edition in April, 1984.

 

[62] Unless otherwise indicated, all the quotes come from The Secret Kingdom by Pat Robertson with Bob Slosser, Bantam Books, New York, 1984. At pages 198-201.

 

[63] Ibid. at pages 122 and 124.

 

[64] Yurica, Katherine, “The Despoiling of America,” The Yurica Report, February 11, 2004. Pat Robertson is quoted on page 21. Robertson’s words were tape-recorded and transcribed by the author.

 

[65] The material in this section is taken from my unpublished book, The New Messiahs.

 

[66] Quoted from Katherine Yurica’s unpublished book, The New Messiahs, which in turn quotes directly from the transcript of the 700 Club show.

 

[67]  Francis Schaeffer did say in this speech: “Now…let me say…we do not want a theocracy! I personally am opposed to a theocracy. On this side of the New Testament I do not believe there is a place for a theocracy ‘till Jesus the King comes back….[But] Every appropriate legal and political governmental means must be used.”

 

[68] According to his Introduction to his book, The Battle for the Mind, Fleming H. Revell Co., New Jersey, 1980, at page 10.

 

[69] La Haye’s book Battle for the Mind has been characterized as “a classic piece of agitprop—political writing that stirs up anger and hatred…LaHaye simplifies and inflames, endeavoring to characterize virtually all of nonfundamentalist society as a victim of the spell of secular humanism….his abomination of the secular world borders on incitement.” From Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, who wrote Holy Terror, The Fundamentalist War on America’s Freedoms in Religion, Politics and Our Private Lives, Doubleday & Company, New York, 1982 at pp. 129-130.

 

[70] Ibid. at page 127.

 

[71] Ibid. at page 78.

 

[72] Ibid. at pp. 78-79.

 

[73] I can’t help discounting La Haye’s premise. It seems to me that Jesus, Himself, was the first true Humanist because of John 3:16: For God so loved [humanity] that He gave his only begotten Son…” There is such a thing as Christian Humanism—a fact that is totally ignored by both Francis Schaeffer and Tim LaHaye.

 

[74] Op. cit. at 137-138.

 

[75] See a “Composium of Reviews

 

[76] I found this statement astounding and shocking because of an association I couldn’t help make: could the authors’ and dominionist’s disdain of democracy be encouraging their people and their youths to reject election results? It raises the possibility that a religious cult with an estimated following of thirty million Americans, which teaches children to despise the democratic process as part of their political and religious training, could actually be encouraging and inspiring the next step: the rigging of voting machines in every state of the union. After all, they are dedicated to placing only “godly men” in positions of power. 

 

[77] Walter Olson, “Invitation to a Stoning,” Reason Magazine, November 1998.http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InvitationToAStoning.html

 

[78] “Reclaiming America For Christ” by Bob Moser. “In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.’”

See also: “A Mission To 'Reclaim America” by Jane Lampman.

 

[79] Cheryl Forbes, The Religion of Power, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983.

 

[80] Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy, Viking, 2006. At page 217.

 

[81] Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy, Viking, 2006. At page vii of the Preface.

 

[82] Kevin Phillips also makes this point in his book, American Theocracy: “We can begin by describing the role of religion in American politics and war with two words: widely underestimate. At page 121.

 

[83] Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, Holy Terror, The Fundamentalist War on America’s Freedoms in Religion, Politics and Our Private Lives, Doubleday, New York, 1982 at pp. 82-99.

 

[84] Ibid. p. 83-99.

 

[85] Ibid. p. 83.

 


See also:

Clarkson, Frederick, The Rise of Dominionism
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html

 

 

Clarkson, Frederick, The Battle for the Mainline Churches, Public Eye.org

 

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n1/clarkson_battle.html

 

 


Send a letter 
to the editor 
about this article

Related Articles

The Capitalist Threat
by George Soros
What kind of society do we want? "Let
the free market decide!" is the often-
heard response. That response, a prominent
capitalist argues, undermines the very
values on which open and democratic
societies depend.


  

A Dominionist's View:

Three New Testament Roots
of Economic Liberty

Howard Ahmanson

But if you think of capitalism as
economic liberty, then there are several
New Testament passages that argue in
favor of it. I want to explore three passages
that bring out foundational issues regarding
the nature of economic justice and demonstrate
a biblical sympathy with liberty and the market.


  

Theocracy in America
Chris Floyd

Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even
now, the ignorant barbarians in Washington
are pushing a law through Congress that would
"acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law,
liberty [and] government"
in the United States.


  

A Response to Stanley Kurtz

By Katherine Yurica
May 23, 2005

Stanley Kurtz did his best. In an article titled,
“Dminionist Domination,” published May 2, 2005
by National Review Online, he tried to attack and
crumble the reasoning in my essay, “The Despoiling
of America.” He didn’t have much to work with, so
as a last resort he made up things. He invented an
essay that does not exist and said, “See! Look at
what she wrote!” Then he gave a list of the imaginary
faults in his newly rewritten essay and attributed
them to me!

 

 

Stanley Kurtz Attacks Yurica:
Dominionist Domination
The Left runs with a wild theory.
by Stanley Kurtz 

You want political paranoia? You want guilt by 
association? You want flat-out looniness? Well,
Joe McCarthy’s got nothing on the good liberal 
folks who are warning us about a takeover by 
“Dominionist” Christians. What you've just read
is a composite I've created (often word for word) 
by drawing on a couple of web-sites I'll link you 
to in a moment.

A Short Review of Katherine Yurica's
Rebuttal of Stanley Kurtz' Attack

By Lee Laurais

These days, when I hear someone describe him or herself as a
Christian, I'm apt to duck behind the piano as I expect that I'm in
the presence of a war-mongering, gay-bashing, profiteering, violence-
prone, right wing yahoo who couldn't care less about the poor, the
outcast and the marginalized and who would happily trade his or her
birthright of freedom and decency for the mess of pottage that our
decadent, irresponsible, national leadership has gotten us into.

 

 

The Religious Right and Christian Faith

By Gabriel Fackre

In this book I have tried to lay bare the theological
presuppositions of the political and moral programs
of the Religious Right. In every doctrinal area we have
seen loyalty to important aspects of classical Christian
conviction. At the same time, each of the chapters of the
Christian story has told of basic distortions which warrant
Senator Mark Hatfield's evangelical indictment.

 

 

Evangelical Pastor Preaches the Gospel
of Free Market Capitalism and Bloody
Preemptive Strikes:

[Yurica Report Editor's Note: Read Jeffrey Sharlet's
Soldiers of Christ, Inside America's most powerful
megachurch.
Sharlet writes: "In addition to New Life,
Pastor Ted presides over the National Association of
Evangelicals
(NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30
million believers make up the nation’s most powerful
religious lobbying group, and also over a smaller
network of his own creation, the Association of Life-Giving
Churches, 300 or so congregations modeled on New Life’s
“free market” approach to the divine...New Lifers, Pastor
Ted writes with evident pride, 'like the benefits, risks,
and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.'
They like the stimulation of a new brand. 'Have you ever
switched your toothpaste brand, just for the fun of it?' Pastor
Ted asks. Admit it, he insists. All the way home, you felt
a 'secret little thrill,' as excited questions ran through your
mind: 'Will it make my teeth whiter? My breath fresher?'....
This is the sensation Ted wants pastors to bring to the
Christian experience. He believes it is time 'to harness
the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry.'
Globalization, he believes, is merely a vehicle for the
spread of Christianity. He means Protestantism in particular;
Catholics, he said, 'constantly look back.' ....'My fear,” he
says, 'is that my children will grow up in an Islamic state.'

"And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile,
worldly counterpart. 'I teach a strong ideology of the use of
power,' he says, 'of military might, as a public service.' He is
for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s exhortations
against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for
ferocious war, because 'the Bible’s bloody. There’s a lot
about blood.'"

It's now available on line at Harper's. Don't miss this piece!
Click on this image to go there: ]

 



Directory on the Rise of Christian Dominionism

Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2006 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.