For some background on the topic of Dominionism – the concept used to attack several Christians involved in national politics – we have provided two articles. First is a serious work by Gary DeMar. The other is a more humorous approach by Ben House. Enjoy.

Liberal Dominionists Go On The Attack
Gary DeMar

It seems that there are more nutball Leftists than there are grains of sand at Myrtle Beach. One of the kookiest is Michelle Goldberg. Here’s her latest “journalistic” screed: “Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry aren’t just devout — both have deep ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which says Christians should rule the world.”

Here’s a little known secret: It’s liberal Dominionists like Michele Goldberg who want to rule the world. She’ll tell you otherwise, but it’s Liberals who use the power of the State to implement their worldview and force everyone to live under their draconian laws. It’s Liberals who want to centralize political power in a national system. It’s Liberals who want to control education, the media, healthcare, financial institutions, oil companies, and business and make us pay for their hair-brained schemes.

I met Miss Goldberg at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church at a creation conference a few years ago. I was one of the speakers. She was there doing research for her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. Here’s some hyped jargon from the site promoting it:

Journalist Michelle Goldberg has been covering the intersection of politics and ideology for years. Before the 2004 election, and during the ensuing months when many Americans were trying to understand how an administration marked by cronyism, disregard for the national budget, and poorly disguised self-interest had been reinstated, Goldberg traveled through the heartland of a country in the grips of a fevered religious radicalism: the America of our time. From the classroom to the mega-church to the federal court, she saw how the growing influence of dominionism — the doctrine that Christians have the right to rule nonbelievers — is threatening the foundations of democracy.

I’m sure you noticed what I noticed. Change a few words here and there, and you would swear that Miss Goldberg was describing liberalism in general and the Obama administration in particular. You see, dominion is an inescapable concept. Every ideology is about dominion.

But unlike the Dominionists on the Left, who want to increase the power of the State, tax the productive into poverty, and remove all limits from government spending, Dominionists on the right want to decrease the power of the State, shrink the onerous tax burden on productive Americans, and force the federal government to live and spend within its constitutional boundaries.

As I mentioned, Miss Goldberg was at a conference where I was speaking. I don’t remember if I approached her (unlikely) or she approached me (more likely). I do know that we spoke for a long time on the subject of her book and the topic of Dominion. It didn’t matter. She had no intention of getting the story straight. But this didn’t stop her publicist from writing the following:

“With her trenchant interviews and the telling testimonies of the people behind this movement, Goldberg gains access into the hearts and minds of citizens who are striving to remake the secular Republic bequeathed by our founders into a Christian nation run according to their interpretation of scripture.”

Really? Not once did she take a note or record a word of anything I said. Why? Because what she was hearing from me did not fit what she was already planning to write. My explanation of what dominion was all about didn’t fit her preconceived paradigm.

True to form, Miss Goldberg is using her straw-man approach to journalism in an attempt to burn the reputations of two Republican presidential candidates who are no more Dominionists than Mickey Mouse. She and her fellow-leftists want to radicalize them so no one will notice how radical their worldview is.

Keep in mind, that the radicals control the schools where the majority of Americans send their children. In addition to all the nonsense that goes on there, California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Leftist Democrat Dominionist, signed a bill that requires “public schools to include the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum.” “History should be honest,” the governor said. “This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books.”

Do you remember the California case where a high school history teacher from the Cupertino Union School District was prohibited from providing supplemental handouts to students about American history because the historical documents contain some references to God and religion?

This talk about Dominionism goes back a ways. Essentially, anybody who does not agree with a Leftist agenda is a radical Dominionist. Rush Limbaugh spotted the tactic when he discussed the conspiratorial fear of the Left on the topic of Dominionism during his May 2, 2005 show.

Read More

Mount Rushdoony More: A Key to Understanding Politics
Ben House

Recently there have been a series of articles in various news media sources about the influences behind certain Presidential candidates. This has led to some really shocking revelations, including the following:

1. Some candidates for the Presidency have actually read books.

2. The books and authors they read hold to conservative ideals.

3. But it gets worse: The “conservative ideals” are not the traditional acceptable conservative views (held by such conservatives as Richard Lugar and William Howard Taft), but rather are weird, right-wing, extremist ideas based on weird, right-wing, extremist texts, such as the Constitution, Magna Charta, and the Bible (as interpreted by weird, right-wing, extremists).

4. The dangerous coalition (remember the vast right wing conspirators of the past!) of authors include the late Francis Schaeffer and the yet living and conspiratorial Nancy Pearcey. L’Abri in Switzerland, where Schaeffer taught and where Pearcey attended, was a training camp for the conspirators. The agenda taught there was simple: World Domination. (This agenda can be easily discerned by reading some of Schaeffer’s books on faith, Christian living, art, and pollution.)

5. The real dominating influence behind the political candidates and the authors they read is R. J. Rushdoony and his Dominion Theology. Rushdoony was hammering away at some hard core radical ideas, such as the following: The Bible is true; we should live by the laws and precepts of the Bible; the Gospel will spread to all nations and people; children ought to be instructed in the ways of the Lord. There’s more, but you can see the nature of Rushdoony’s agenda.

It is surprising, but it took the media quite a few years to discover that Rushdoony was the guiding force behind the Presidency of George W. Bush. It should be obvious to any discerning reader that not only were President Bush and Laura avid Dominationists (or Reconstructionists or Theonomists), but also most of his administration officials were of that same view. Karl Rove was a theologian and Reconstructionist. Vice President Cheney meditated on and quoted from The Institutes of Biblical Law almost daily. Colin Powell held strongly to the application of Biblical case laws, but ran afoul of Donald Rumsfeld over the issue of stoning Sabbath breakers. Condolezza Rice was personally committed to establishing Bible-based theocracies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and then the world). The Department of Education was intently dedicated to implementing the concepts Rushdoony wrote about in The Messianic Character of American Education. The “No Child Left Behind” was a veiled effort to implement covenant theology and see that all children were baptized as infants. (Dispensationalists were duped into supporting “No Child Left Behind” by thinking it was referring to the rapture. Reconstructionists generally plan on stoning Dispensationalists last, assuming they don’t convert.)

The foreign policy and monetary policies, the political appointments, the legislative actions, and other programs associated with George W. Bush were all done in an effort to bring about a Theocratic, Reconstructionist America. The history of the Bush administration can be read in its prophetic predictive form by going to the many books Rushdoony wrote, but especially by paralleling the chapters of The Institutes of Biblical Law with the Bush programs and appointments.

Sparingly, the media has only begun to make this connection. There was a book that came out in the early 1970s titled It Didn’t Start With Watergate. Well, Rushdoony’s influence didn’t start with George W. Bush and is not confined to Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

It is plain to see. The forces working for and with Rushdoony have been at work for a long time and have had only thinly veiled references to his power. It is beyond the scope of this essay, but it can be shown that such groups as the Puritans of New England, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock, and many of the Scotch-Irish who came to the colonies were all Rushdoonyites, Reconstructionists, Theonomists, and Dominionists.

The real monument and source of Rushdoony’s influence can be seen in South Dakota. (This was designed to call attention away from Washington, D.C.–the shadow capital–and Vallecito, California–the real locus of power in America.)

We all know the mountain and the images: It is Mount Rushmore and the four Presidents are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Very clever of Rushdoony to make it look like they were the sources of inspiration. The word “Rushmore” was coined by a gathering of Reconstructionists who thought it was pure humor that the idiots would never figure out. They were right.

All four of the Presidents sculpted on that mountain were ardent Theonomists and Reconstructionists.

Consider:

First, George Washington. Took an oath upon a Bible. (Rushdoony even admitted that oaths were often taken with the Bible opened to Deuteronomy.) Made religious statements concerning the necessity of faith and virtue (shorthand for “Theocracy”). Waged war against the theologically compromising Anglicans of England by using a coalition of Puritan Congregationalists and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. Silently oversaw the creation of a theonomically centered power-base for the executive branch at the Constitutional convention. Suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion since Reconstructionist often use force against personal liberties.

Second, Thomas Jefferson. The whole “separation of church and state” idea was actually a ploy to sidetrack people from his real agenda: Combination of church and state (a basic Rushdoony idea often emphasized in his books that state just the opposite–how clever again). The Louisiana Purchase was simply an application of Dominion theology. Use force, cajolery, and manipulation to conquer. The war against the Barbary pirates (often concealed in studies of American history) was a supreme act of theonomic intolerance of people whose religious views are different (Muslims) or whose economic views are different (pirates or socialists–same thing, of course).

Third, Abraham Lincoln. The most theonomic President ever. Rushdoony’s blanket approval of Lincoln can be seen in the many references he made to the Constitutional violations and twisted interpretations that were used to justify the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln’s policies toward the Southern Confederacy (the anti-theonomists of the time) were designed to be the microcosm of the Theonomic Agenda. Just look at the subsequent history of America’s many theonomic Presidents: FDR’s attempts to create theocracies in Japan and Germany; Truman’s somewhat successful establishment of a Reconstructionist South Korea; LBJ’s failed efforts to create a Bible-based Vietnam. (Kennedy was “removed” when the powers that be realized that he was in lock step with the Vatican, hence the need for the Protestant Johnson.)

Fourth, Theodore Roosevelt. TR was the perhaps Rushdoony’s favorite President and most useful pawn (at least until George W. Bush came along). The phrase “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is a shortened, one line version of Rushdoony’s 3 volumes of The Institutes of Biblical Law. “Speak softly” was quite a hoot for the insiders, because anyone who ever heard the thunderings and declamations of Rushdoony can attest to the fact that he had a soft, mild, slow speaking style. Then there is the rest of the phrase “and carry a big stick.” The “Big Stick” is, of course, Biblical Law.

There will be those who “rush” (be aware of the etymology of that word) to certain sources to denounce what I have said. Rushdoony, they will say, wasn’t born until 1916 and died in 2001. Note well, however, the key significance of those dates: 1916 was the year that Presbyterian theonomic Woodrow Wilson was re-elected. This re-election thus confirmed the institution of theonomic ideals such as the income tax and paved the way for the Reconstructionist American armed forces to enter World War I, the war designed to “make the world safe for Theocracy.” The year 2001 was the year of the 9-11 events. These events enabled George Bush, whose Presidency had been in question, to consolidate his Reconstructionist power base and to begin waging war against other religions, namely humanists and Muslims and other proponents of religious liberty.

Yes, the influence of Rushdoony can be seen long before 1916 and far beyond the political views of Congresswoman Bachmann and Governor Perry. The long line of Rushdoony-ites can be seen on Mount Rushdoony-More and even further back in time. Evidences of this theocratic conspiracy trace back through Cromwell, Calvin, Knox, Charlemagne, Constantine, Augustine, Paul of Tarsus, and King David. The news media better remember the phrase “ad fontes,” meaning, “to the sources.” Psalm 2 is a great beginning place. Rushdoony was apparently behind the agenda of that source, along with his other many efforts.

Source Used with permission