I read Joel’s review of The Politics of Witness by Allan Bevere (I have not read the book) in the light of his strident attacks on so-called “dominionism”. I was glad to see Joel’s agreement that Christian involvement in right-wing politics should be judged by the same standards as Christian involvement in left-wing politics. The post opened up for me the question about whether Christians should be involved in politics at all, of whatever colour. In the words of the alleged “dominionist” Peter Wagner:

The rules of the democratic game open the doors for Christians … to move into positions of leadership influential enough to shape the whole nation from top to bottom.

But is it evil “dominionism” for Christians to move into these positions of political influence? Here is the comment I made on Joel’s post, which he has yet to respond to despite having posted at least eight times since that post:

I guess there is an issue here which I still need to resolve with you. Does Bevere help us to resolve it?

Is it right and good for Christians to get involved in politics? If it is right, in what way? Is it wrong, for example, for a Christian to stand as President, because by doing so he or she is “bent on taking over the American Government in the name of God”? Or what about standing as Congressman or Senator? Or is it only wrong if he or she does so as the representative of some kind of Christian organisation? What, then, if the group is not explicitly Christian but its policies and nearly all its members are Christian? What if that group is the one of the two main parties, and the candidate has won that party’s support for more or less Christian policies?

Or if all Christian involvement in politics is wrong, what is the logic and what are the consequences of Christians, even if in the majority, handing over all the business of governing to non-Christians?

Do you have answers to these questions? Does Bevere? After all, they strike at the root of our rather fundamental disagreement about “dominionism”.

Joel doesn’t seem to have any answers, at least yet. Does anyone else reading this?

My own position is clear: it is right and proper for us Christians to be involved in politics at all levels, provided that we use honest and democratic means to do so. Indeed this is what I have done myself, at a low level. If any Christians do gain power, they will naturally want to use that power to promote policies generally in line with their faith, but they should not use it to oppress others or to enforce Christian practice or morality. I do not believe that any church as an institution should be involved in politics or endorse any candidate. I would consider Christian political parties legitimate, but at least currently here in the UK I would not choose to promote one.

The alternative to Christian involvement in politics would be, it seems to me, to hand over our nations as gifts to the powers of evil – either to liberal secularists or to fundamentalists of other religions. Is that what Joel and his fellow anti-dominionists want?

So it is interesting to see that Joel has also provided evidence which could suggest, at least to conspiracy theorists, that the Dominionismism conspiracy is an Islamic plot to undermine Christianity and present the USA to those powers of evil. He quotes from an article Exposing religious fundamentalism in the US published by Al Jazeera, best known as apologists for Osama Bin Laden and friends, which claims that

The US media has been downplaying a radical Christian theology that is increasingly influential in the Republican Party.

In fact what happened is that some in the US media, such as Lisa Miller of the Washington Post, realised that other media reports had been grossly overblown and inaccurate, and offered much more balanced analysis of the issues. But this new analysis did not suit the Islamist agenda, and so not surprisingly Al Jazeera weighed in with its own detailed but tendentious article. At least they did manage to lay to rest the lie that Peter Wagner is anti-democratic with this quote from him:

If a majority feels that heterosexual marriage is the best choice for a happy and prosperous society, those in the minority should agree to conform – not because they live in a theocracy, but because they live in a democracy. The most basic principle of democracy is that the majority, not the minority, rules and sets the ultimate norms for society.

Indeed, although the Al Jazeera article is right to balance this with a mention of minority rights which even a majority should not take away.

Now I accept that some Christians in politics have put forward extreme policies which I find highly distasteful. That is their right in a free and democratic society – although when it comes to recent horrors such as the call to let uninsured patients die I don’t see how such policies can be reconciled with any form of Christian faith. But the existence of such abuses on the right, and perhaps also on the left, is no argument for Christians to keep out of politics. Instead what is needed is for large numbers of sensible Christians with moderate policies to get involved, to defeat by democratic means both the extremist Christians and the secularists, and to acquire the influence needed to mend the world’s broken political systems and governments.

Yesterday I demonstrated that Francis Schaeffer was not a “Dominionist”, despite the conspiracy theories of the Dominionismists. Today (thanks again to Jeremy Pierce for the link) I can write that the other main alleged conspirator, C. Peter Wagner, is not a “Dominionist” either, at least not in anything like the sense of the word used by the conspiracy theorists. Wagner has written his own new “urgent message” explaining his position on these matters. Here is the most relevant section:

Dominionism.   This refers to the desire that some of my friends and I have to follow Jesus and do what He wants. One of the things He does want He taught us to pray for in the Lord’s Prayer: “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This means that we do our best to see that what we know is characteristic of heaven work its way into the warp and woof of our society here on earth. Think of heaven: no injustice, no poverty, righteousness, peace, prosperity, no disease, love, no corruption, no crime, no misery, no racism, and I could go on. Wouldn’t you like your city to display those characteristics?

But where does dominion come in? On the first page of the Bible, God told Adam and Eve to “fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc.” (Genesis 1:28). Adam, Eve, and the whole human race were to take dominion over the rest of creation, but Satan entered the picture, succeeded in usurping Adam’s dominion for himself and became what Jesus calls “the ruler of this world” (John 14:30). When Jesus came, he brought the kingdom of God and He expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth. This is what we mean by dominionism.

A theocracy. The usual meaning of theocracy is that a nation is run by authorized representatives of the church or its functional religious equivalent. Everyone I know in NAR would absolutely reject this idea, thinking back to Constantine’s failed experiment or some of the oppressive Islamic governments today. The way to achieve dominion is not to become “America’s Taliban,” but rather to have kingdom-minded people in every one of the Seven Mountains: Religion, Family, Education, Government, Media, Arts & Entertainment, and Business so that they can use their influence to create an environment in which the blessings and prosperity of the Kingdom of God can permeate all areas of society.

Thus to Peter Wagner and his fellows in the loosely structured New Apostolic Reformation, “dominion” means something quite different from what the conspiracy theorists are alleging, not at all like Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism – and rather different from what Schaeffer believed. Is there anything here which any Christians can object to?

The best thing that can be said about the “Dominionismists” is that they are ignorant.

Two weeks ago I posted Dominionismism: A conspiracy theory unmasked. But accusations of “dominionism” persist against allegedly Christian leaders and US Presidential candidates. The fallacious arguments behind these accusations often include allegations that the late Francis Schaeffer was an advocate of some unhealthy kind of theocracy or “dominionism”.

The Francis Schaeffer Studies.Org Blog has now published an ARTICLE: ERRONEOUS CHARGES OF DOMINIONISM & THEOCRACY clarifying that Schaeffer did not believe in theocracy, Christian Reconstructionism, or any kind of dominionism. The article clarifies this with quotes from Schaeffer, such as this one:

None of this, however, changes the fact that the United States was founded upon a Christian consensus, nor that we today should bring Judeo-Christian principles into play in regard to government. But that is very different from a theocracy in name or in fact.

The article summarises Schaeffer’s views as follows:

It seems apparent that Schaeffer’s belief was that the role of Christianity in politics is to naturally influence government by being transforming first in the person, then in one’s relationships, then in the church, then in the culture and finally in government and the whole of life. … He held that the only way naturally to bring about lasting change in government was by changing the human heart. That change alters our worldview and also how that we vote and the influence we have on government. So there is to be action on our part in government, but it is never the final solution to man’s [sic] problems.

Thanks to Jeremy Pierce, on Facebook, for the link.

Jeremy Pierce writes:

I’ve determined that there’s a political faction out there that needs a name, because it’s a group of conspiracy theorists with a particular agenda that’s becoming somewhat influential, and it’s achieving its agenda fairly well. Its agenda is to discredit mainstream evangelicalism by confusing it with extremist figures who have nearly zero influence on much of any importance.

What is this conspiracy theory which the always careful philosopher Jeremy has unmasked? He calls it “Dominionismism”, because it started with the invention of a Christian tendency called “Dominionism”. This non-existent -ism has been manufactured by a conflation of three quite different theologies: the Christian political activism of Abraham Kuyper and Francis Schaeffer; the “Dominion Theology” associated with “third-wave Pentecostalism”; and the Christian Reconstructionism of R.J. Rushdoony and others. In fact I already started to unmask this conspiracy theory in my June post Taking over mountains from the grass roots.

I would agree with the “Dominionismists” in condemning Christian Reconstructionism, a bid to impose Old Testament laws and punishments on modern society. However, I am glad to say that this is very much on the fringe of Christian teaching today and has “nearly zero influence on much of any importance”. The Christian involvement in politics promoted by many evangelicals today, including several US presidential hopefuls, is something quite different, summarised by Jeremy as

attempting to do what good we can in the world, and that involves seeking to implement policies that Christians agree with.

Now it is hardly unexpected that atheists and liberal Christians object to evangelicals seeking to implement the policies that they, the evangelicals, agree with, but the atheists and liberals do not. But that is no excuse for anyone to confuse quite different theologies and manufacture a non-existent conspiracy.

The really sad thing is that otherwise good mainstream and more-or-less evangelical Christians like my blogging friend Joel Watts have been led astray by this conspiracy theory and are using it to divide the church and discredit good evangelical teachers. To be fair, Joel has not tagged any posts “dominionist” since 2008. But only last month he posted This Week in Dominionism, the Presidency, and 2012, in which he wrote

I haven’t posted much on Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism lately, … but it is something which people should be concerned about.

That is enough to show that he has bought into the conspiracy theory which Jeremy has unmasked.

Joel, I agree with you in not liking the politics of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, or for that matter of any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, to the limited extent that I know those politics. But if you want to oppose them, please do so by telling the distasteful truth about their policies and their likely effects, not by smearing them with meaningless labels like “dominionist” or linking them with movements like Christian Reconstructionism which I am almost certain that they reject.

But my real concern is not so much for politicians. After all, most of them deserve the abuse which is heaped on them. And I am not going to treat Rick Perry as a good Christian after the revelation reported by Jim West that Perry gives just half a percent of his income to churches and religious organisations. But I do think Joel is going far too far when he condemns a whole slate of widely respected Christian leaders as “heretical” on the basis of short quotations taken out of context and a completely unjustifiable attempt to assert guilt by association with the word “dominionism”. This is completely irresponsible spreading of dissent and division in the church.

Joel, I know you are a reasonable man and prepared to change your views and admit it publicly. I appeal to you to reconsider what “dominionism” actually means, and to accept that the Christian leaders whom you name, although they may have said some stupid things, do not teach anything like Christian Reconstructionism, but only the kind of generalised Christian involvement in politics which in your saner moments you actually seem to support.

My Christian friend and former colleague Michael has blogged from Moscow a post I am a communist. The small “c” even in the title is not accidental, even though Michael illustrates his post with pictures of Soviet achievements – “ВДНХ” is the Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy, the one-time showpiece of the USSR now officially known as the All-Russia Exhibition Centre. For Michael makes it very clear that he is no sympathiser with Soviet Communism. He is especially critical of how it was based on violence and coercion. And concerning its atheistic basis, he asks:

why did the soviets throw God out? Didn’t they realize that God is on the side of the poor, the upholder of the weak, oppressed and downtrodden. Why didn’t they enlist his support in their strivings for justice and equality? Well, unfortunately the church had sided with the oppressor. …

So in what sense can Michael call himself a communist? He explains:

I am a communist. I embrace the goal, the impact statement of a just and equal society for all. But I do not espouse the route the soviets took. If change is not peaceful the oppressed simply become the oppressor – and that is what happened. … Those who are opposed to the new society – love them. Melt them with the warmth of the sun; blowing a howling gale around them will just make them cling to their opposition more tightly. But as I look at those communist ideals, they resonate with me. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth just as it is in heaven.

In this I agree with Michael. So I can say that I too am a communist, with a small “c”. I embrace the ideal which the early church found:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. ³³ … God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all ³⁴ that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales ³⁵ and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:32-35 (NIV 2011)

Note that this communism did not involve complete renunciation of private property. Giving to the community was voluntary. But “God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all” that enough money came in for the poor in the community to be provided for.

Now this kind of communism is of course very different from the Soviet kind. There are two main differences. The first is that Soviet Communism was atheistic, which is fundamental to its philosophy but is also peripheral to its practical outworking. As a Christian I of course reject this atheistic basis. The second is that that Communism was enforced by the power of the state. I think almost all would agree that some of the ways in which it was enforced, such as through the Gulag concentration camps, were wrong. But is it fundamentally wrong in principle for the state to enforce sharing of possessions so that the poor are properly cared for?

Now I know the answer that would be given by many conservative American Christians. They consider their private property to be inalienable as a fundamental human right, and that even a democratically elected government has no right to deprive them of it.

But the Bible offers a rather different picture. In the Old Testament the collection of tithes, to support the priesthood and the poor, was commanded and enforced under the Law of Moses. The rules for the Jubilee also involve regular and massive enforced redistribution of wealth from those who have acquired it, so that “there need be no poor people among you” (Deuteronomy 15:4, NIV 2011 – clearly alluded to in Acts 4:34 quoted above). These examples are from the theocratic nation of Israel and so may not be directly applicable to modern states. But the New Testament (especially in Romans 13:1-7) upholds the right of even idolatrous dictatorial states like the Roman empire to levy taxes, and the duty of Christians to pay them. So, I would argue, while the state would be wrong to confiscate private property arbitrarily or inequitably, it does have the right to levy taxes to support the poor and needy. And I would also argue, on the basis of the advice given to the non-Israelite King Lemuel, that it has the duty to do so where such taxes are the best way of providing this support:

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
⁹ Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV 2011)

The result would not exactly be Soviet-style Communism. It certainly wouldn’t be atheistic. But it would involve those with more than they need being taxed a fair proportion of their income to put an end to poverty in the world. I would see this as a practical outworking of the biblical principle, seen in practice in the nation of Israel and in the early church, that there should be no more poor and needy in the community. This is not the whole, but it is a significant part, of bringing to fulfilment the biblical vision (Revelation 11:15) that “The kingdom of the world [will] become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah”.