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.
[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
[13] Ibid, p. 730.
Quoted at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/crushed.htm
[14] Ibid, p. 450.
Quoted at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/pervert.htm
[15] Ibid, pp. 343,
448-449. http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/image.htm
[16] Ibid, p. 728.
Quoted at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/purpnewa.htm
[18] Ibid, pp.450-451.
Quoted at: http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/private.htm
[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.
[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?”
https://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/CanDemocracyBeChristian.html
[25] R. J. Rushdoony,
The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973)
p. 524.
[27] Ibid. p. 449.
Read “fallen man” as everyone else but Dominionists!
[45] R. J. Rushdoony,
The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973)
p. 837.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[61]
According to an article by http://slisweb.lis.wisc.edu/~jcherney/pat.html
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.