Their
Kingdom Come: Dominionism's Quest for
Political Capital in the Emergent World
Order
By
Phillip D. Collins & Paul Collins
May,
2008
RaidersNewsNetwork.com
Dominionism:
Marrying Christianity to the Kosmos
In
John 18:33, Pilate asked Jesus, "Art
thou the King of the Jews?" In John
18:36, Jesus replied, "My kingdom is
not of this world." The original
Greek word for "world" is kosmos,
which connotes an arrangement, system,
order, or government. Jesus was not
expressing derision for the physical
world, but with the usurious political
systems that had come to dominate it. Some
Christians have construed this response as
a rationale for indolence and have
embraced an apathetic brand of political
abdication theology. However, Christian
proponents of political abdication fail to
consider the transliteration of kosmos
and the historical background against
which the term was invoked. Jesus was not
condemning political activism. Instead, He
was condemning the world’s political
systems of that time, specifically the
oligarchical model of the Roman Empire and
its surrogate, the theocracy of the
Pharisees.
That being
said, there is another variety of
so-called "Christians" that
constitutes an equally extreme polar
opponent to abdication theologians. This
other polar extreme is known as "Dominionism."
While abdication theologians construe the
Scriptures as a rationale for complete
political abdication, Dominionists distort
Genesis 1:28 to legitimize a purely
political agenda. Dominionists totally
politicize the Gospel, thus marrying
Christianity to secular institutions. Once
it is wedded to secularism, Christianity
adopts the same anthropocentric premises
of secularism. One of the anthropocentric
premises that tend to pervade secularized
Christianity is the notion that man must
save himself. This was a core contention
of communism, fascism, and other forms of
anti-theistic sociopolitical Utopianism.
In the context of Dominionism, this
contention is given a marginally theistic
interpretation: Man fully embodies and
facilitates the march of God on earth.
However, there is very little difference
between the anti-theistic and theistic
iterations of this contention. In both
instances, the adherent’s gaze is firmly
fixed on the ontological confines of this
world.
As is the
case with all Hegelian dialectics, the
dialectic extremes of abdication theology
and Dominionist theology produce the same
outcome: totalitarianism. The abdication
theologian surrenders to totalitarianism,
whereas the Dominionist actively creates
totalitarianism. Basically, Dominionism is
a cult of neo-Gnostic jihadists
committed to goals that almost mirror the
objectives of earlier sociopolitical
Utopians. Chris Hedges describes
Dominionism as follows:
"What
the disparate sects of this movement,
known as Dominionism, share is an
obsession with political power. A
decades-long refusal to engage in politics
at all following the Scopes trial has been
replaced by a call for Christian
"dominion" over the nation and,
eventually, over the earth itself.
Dominionists preach that Jesus has called
them to build the kingdom of God in the
here and now, whereas previously it was
thought we would have to wait for it.
America becomes, in this militant
biblicism, an agent of God, and all
political and intellectual opponents of
America's Christian leaders are viewed,
quite simply, as agents of Satan. (No
pagination)"
There is a
crucial distinction to be made between
using the Scriptures as a compass for
making decisions within the political
system and using the Scriptures as a
rationale for co-opting and controlling
the political system. In Vengeance is
Ours: The Church in Dominion, Albert
Dager synopsizes the three basic tenets
upon which this militarized form of
Christianity is premised:
"1)
Satan usurped man’s dominion over the
earth through the temptation of Adam and
Eve; 2) The Church is God’s instrument
to take dominion back from Satan; 3) Jesus
cannot or will not return until the Church
has taken dominion by gaining control of
the earth’s governmental and social
institutions. (87)"
Thus,
Jesus' kingdom is reduced to a secular
government established by and maintained
through secular power. While secular
progressives cite Dominionism as a
violation of the separation of church and
state, it actually represents the
subsumption of the church by the state.
Dominionism empowers temporal
machinations. Political, social, and
military powers attain ascendancy under
the rubric of maintaining the Dominionist
government. Ultimately, the State is
apotheosized. Again, this was an objective
of earlier sociopolitical Utopians. That
this particular strain of Utopianism has a
marginally theistic gloss is
inconsequential. Dominionism represents
but one more permutation of sociopolitical
Utopianism. This contention is reinforced
by Dominionism’s inherently neo-Gnostic
character.
Unholy
Warriors: Dominionism’s Neo-Gnostic Jihad
The
neo-Gnostic character of Dominionism is
underscored by its mandate for
Dominionists to "build the kingdom of
God in the here and now." Such a
mandate reconceptualizes the Eschaton
(i.e., "end of days") as a
purely immanent event.
"Immanence" is a term derived
from the Latin in manere, which
means "to remain within"
("Immanence," no pagination).
Likewise, the Dominionists’ Eschaton
purely indwells the ontological plane of
the physical universe. The practice of
immanentization finds its conceptual basis
with the Trinitarian symbolism of Joachim
of Fiore. Historian Eric Voegelin expands
on Joachim’s symbolism:
"Joachim
of Flora broke with the Augustinian
conception of a Christian society when he
applied the symbol of the Trinity to the
course of history.... In his trinitarian
eschatology Joachim created the aggregate
of symbols which govern the
self-interpretation of modern political
society to this day.... The first of these
symbols is the conception of history as a
sequence of three ages, of which the third
age is intelligibly the final Third
Realm.... As variations of this symbol are
recognizable the humanistic and
encyclopedist periodization of history
into ancient, medieval and modern history;
Turgot's and Comte's theory of a sequence
of theological, metaphysical and
scientific phases; Hegel's dialectic of
the three stages of freedom and
self-reflective spiritual fulfillment; the
Marxian dialectic of the three states of
primitive communism, class society, and
final Communism; and, finally, the
National Socialist symbol of the Third
Realm. (111-12)"
Immanentization
stemmed the Gnostic derision for faith.
Salvation, according to Gnosticism, was
achieved through gnosis
(knowledge). Human reason was apotheosized
and the cognitive powers of man became the
chief facilitator of his salvation. This
contention rejected the Christian mandate
to "walk by faith and not by the
sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). Thus, the
Gnostic sought to make transcendent
concepts intelligible to the rational
mind. To gratify their anthropocentric
hubris, the Gnostics reconceptualized
objects of faith as objects of immanent
experience. Voegelin explains:
"The
attempt at immanentizing the meaning of
existence is fundamentally an attempt at
bringing our knowledge of transcendence
into a firmer grip than the cognitio
fidei, the cognition of faith, will
afford, and the Gnostic experiences offer
this firmer grip insofar as they are an
expansion of the soul to the point where
God is drawn into the existence of man.
(124)"
Yet, for
mortals, the immanentization of the
transcendent was and is a metaphysical
impossibility. That which is not immanent
cannot be arbitrarily made immanent. The
more that Gnostics attempted to
immanentize objects of faith, the more
bowdlerized the metaphysical concepts of
the transcendent realm became. This
metaphysical conundrum is exemplified by
the fallacy stemming from the
immanentization of the Eschaton:
"From
the Joachitic immanentization, a
theoretical problem arises which occurs
neither in classic antiquity nor in
orthodox Christianity, that is, the
problem of an adios in history.... There
is no eidos of history because the
eschatological supernature is not a nature
in the philosophical, immanent case. The
problem of an eidos in history, hence,
arises only when Christian transcendental
fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an
immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton,
however, is a theoretical fallacy. Things
are not things, nor do they have essences,
by arbitrary declaration. The course of
history as a whole is no object of
experience; history has no eidos, because
the course of history extends into the
unknown future. The meaning of history,
thus, is an illusion; and this illusory
eidos is created by treating a symbol of
faith as if it were a proposition
concerning an object of immanent
experience. (120)"
The
Dominionist mandate to "build the
kingdom of God in the here and now"
merely reiterates the Gnostic ambition to
draw God "into the existence of
man." Like the Gnostics, Dominionists
are not content with the limited knowledge
of the transcendent afforded by the cognitio
fidei. In Dominionist theology,
objects of faith are reconceptualized as
objects of immanent experience. This
includes the Eschaton, which the
Dominionist immanentizes by conducting a
political coup.
Essentially,
the Dominionist rejects Christ's
admonition to "walk by faith, not by
sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). While
Dominionists might claim to have faith,
their aspiration to build God's kingdom
themselves betrays their lack of faith in
the Lord's ability to fulfill His own
will. In true anthropocentric fashion, the
Dominionist becomes the will of God in
toto. The Dominionist, not God, makes
the kingdom come and the kingdom comes
through purely secular institutions and
political machinations.
Dominionism
eviscerates Christianity. It transplants
all of the transcendent objects of
Christian faith within the ontological
plane of the physical universe. Thus,
Christianity is reduced to little more
than a revolutionary ideology closely akin
to communism and other forms of
sociopolitical Utopianism. Ironically,
most of the sociopolitical Utopian
movements of history have been premised
upon the rejection of the traditional
theistic conception of God and the Gnostic
doctrine of self-salvation. Although
Dominionists speak about God, salvation,
and faith, their notion of such concepts
is couched in neo-Gnostic immanentism and
sociopolitical Utopianism. To paraphrase
the apostle Paul, they have a form of
godliness, but deny its power (2 Timothy
3:5).
Dominionism
and the Enlightenment: The Ominous
Parallels
Eventually,
the eschatological vision of Gnostic
immanentization was codified as
revolutionary doctrine by the early
sociopolitical Utopians of the
Enlightenment. The Gnostic trappings of
the Enlightenment are demonstrable in
Condorcet’s "doctrine of a coming
Utopia, where indefinite progress would
bring forth a ‘natural salvation’ of
plenty and immortality" (Goeringer,
no pagination). Condorcet's doctrine of
"natural salvation" merely
reiterated the Gnostic doctrine of
self-salvation. The Enlightenment also
shared Gnosticism's veneration of God’s
chief opponent. In The Hypostasis of
the Archons, an Egyptian Gnostic text,
the serpent in Eden is portrayed as
humanity’s benevolent
"Instructor" and "incognito
savior" (Raschke 27). Of course,
Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identifies the
serpent as Satan, the Adversary of both
God and man. Meanwhile, the Hypostasis
caricatures Jehovah as "the archon of
arrogance" (27). Likewise, the
Enlightenment depicted the Devil as
man’s liberator and God as the
oppressive force of superstition. However,
the sociopolitical Utopians of the
Enlightenment would exalt Satan under his
original appellation, Lucifer. Conrad
Goeringer elaborates:
"If
the bible was the holy book of the
Christian enlightenment, then the Encyclopedia
was the inspiration of the Enlightenment.
Here was a compendium of human knowledge
dealing with arts, sciences mechanics and
philosophy which swelled to some 36
volumes by 1780. Begun by the Atheist
Diderot in 1751, the Encyclopedia bore the
imprints of Voltaire, Montesque, Rousseau,
Buffon, Turgot and others. Gracing the
title page of Diderot's compendium in the
first edition was a drawing of Lucifer,
symbol of light and rebellion, standing
beside the masonic symbols of square and
compass. (No pagination)
This
veneration of the Devil under his original
angelic title constituted the religion of
Luciferianism. Like some varieties of
Satanism, Luciferianism did not depict the
devil as a literal metaphysical entity.
Lucifer only symbolized the cognitive
powers of man. He was the embodiment of
science and reason. It was the
Luciferian's religious conviction that
these two facilitative forces would
dethrone the "superstitious"
institutions of God and apotheosize man.
This re-conceptualization of Lucifer
reiterated the theme of Gnostic
immanentization. Lucifer, whom traditional
Christianity regards as a spiritual
entity, was rendered purely immanent. No
longer did Lucifer reside outside the
ontological plane of the physical
universe. Now, he was bodied forth by the
human mind, which Enlightenment adherents
believed to be a purely corporeal
entity."
Diderot’s
inclusion of Masonic symbols on the title
page of Encyclopedia was quite
appropriate. Luciferian thought permeated
the early Masonic Lodge. In Morals and
Dogma, 33rd Degree
Freemason Albert Pike expresses unabashed
praise for Lucifer:
"LUCIFER,
the Light-bearer! Strange and
mysterious name to give to the Spirit of
Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning!
Is it he who bears the Light,
and with its splendors intolerable blinds
feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt
it not. (321)"
Freemasonry,
which enjoyed a certain degree of
prominence during the Enlightenment, would
play a significant role in disseminating
Luciferianism on the popular level as
secular humanism. Basically, secular
humanism qualifies as an anthropocentric
religion and its central precept is
synopsized by the Protagorean dictum:
"Man is the measure of all
things." Whittaker Chambers, former
member of the communist underground in
America, provides an eloquent summation of
secular humanism:
"Humanism
is not new. It is, in fact, man's second
oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in
the first days of Creation under the Tree
of the knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye
shall be as gods.'" (Qutd. in Baker
206)
This
anthropocentric religion was a new
Gnosticism that envisaged the
manifestation of the Eschaton within the
immanent cosmos. Commenting on this new
strain of Gnosticism, Wolfgang Smith
writes:
"In
place of an Eschaton which ontologically
transcends the confines of this world, the
modern Gnostic envisions an End within
history, an Eschaton, therefore, which
is to be realized within the
ontological plane of this visible universe.
(238; emphasis added)."
The
Enlightenment would reach its violent
nadir with the bloody French Revolution,
which would provide the blueprint for all
modern socialist revolutions. Communism,
fascism, and other competing forms of
socialism proffer a heaven on earth. In
this sense, all modern socialist
revolutionaries qualify as secular
Gnostics:
"In
this century, with the presentation of
traditional religious positions in secular
form, there has emerged a secular
Gnosticism beside the other great secular
religions--the mystical union of Fascism,
the apocalypse of Marxist dialectic, the
Earthly City of social democracy. The
secular Gnosticism is almost never
recognized for what it is, and it can
exist alongside other convictions almost
unperceived. (Webb 418)"
The
codification of Gnosticism as
revolutionary doctrine produced secular
movements that, sociologically, behaved
like religious movements. The religious
character of these secular movements is
made evident by the "new
reality" that they sought to tangibly
enact. James H. Billington describes this
"new reality":
"The
new reality they sought was radically
secular and stridently simple. The ideal
was not the balanced complexity of the new
American federation, but the occult
simplicity of its great seal: an
all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the
words Novus Ordo Seclorum. In
search of primal, natural truths,
revolutionaries looked back to
pre-Christian antiquity--adopting pagan
names like "Anaxagoras"
Chaumette and "Anacharsis"
Cloots, idealizing above all the
semimythic Pythagoras as the model
intellect-turned-revolutionary and the
Pythagorean belief in prime numbers,
geometric forms, and the higher harmonies
of music. (6)"
It is very
interesting that such a "radically
secular" reality would be so
preoccupied with the "occult
simplicity" and "pagan
names" of "pre-Christian
antiquity." Yet, as sociologist
William Sims Bainbridge observes, such
occult proclivities are the natural
corollaries of secularism:
"Secularization
does not mean a decline in the need for
religion, but only a loss of power by
traditional denominations. Studies of the
geography of religion show that where the
churches become weak, cults and occultism
explode to fill the spiritual vacuum.
("Religions for a Galactic
Civilization," no pagination) "
One of the
occult personages that would remain as a
fixture of the early revolutionary faith
was Lucifer. However, he would assume yet
another title. The term Lucifer, as
translated by St. Jerome from the original
Hebrew Helel ("bright
one"), shares the same meaning as Prometheus
who brought fire to humanity
("Lucifer," no pagination). The
mythical character of Prometheus was
central to the Utopian vision of early
socialist revolutionaries. James A.
Billington explains:
"A
recurrent mythic theme for
revolutionaries-- early romantics, the
young Marx, the Russians of Lenin’s
time--was Prometheus, who stole fire from
the gods for the use of mankind. The
Promethean faith of revolutionaries
resembled in many respects the general
belief that science would lead men out
of darkness into light. (6; emphasis
added)"
The
Promethean contention that science was the
lantern guiding man to illumination was
vintage scientism. Scientism, which should
not be confused with legitimate science,
is the belief that the investigational
methods of science are essential to all
other fields of study. The modern mind,
chronocentric as it is, might view such
epistemological imperialism as desirable.
However, as a system of quantification,
science can only concern itself with
quantifiable entities. Because they defy
quantification, concepts like human
dignity and liberty are precluded from a
purely scientific outlook.
Nevertheless,
the scientistic approach to governance was
a hallmark of the Promethean
revolutionaries. Friedrich Engels
described Marx’s theory as
"scientific socialism"
("Scientific socialism," no
pagination). Engels selected this term
because both science and Marxism gave
epistemological primacy to observable
phenomenon (no pagination). Marx’s
emphasis upon radical empiricism was
presaged by Henri Saint-Simon’s
physiological interpretation of the state,
which extended the doctrine of sense
certainty "into the altogether new
field of social relations" (Billington
212). Adherents of Saint-Simon’s
philosophy contended that "the key to
diagnosing and curing the ills of humanity
lay in an objective understanding of the
physiological realities that lay behind
all thinking and feeling" (212).
Following this physiological
interpretation of governance to its
logical ends, Saint-Simon developed the
precursor to Marx’s "scientific
socialism":
"Believing
that the scientific method should be
applied to the body of society as well as
to the individual body, Saint-Simon
proceeded to analyze society in terms of
its physiological components: classes. He
never conceived of economic classes in the
Marxian sense, but his functional class
analysis prepared the way for Marx.
(213)"
Saint-Simon’s
work has been described as the
prescription for Sir Francis Bacon’s
prophetic vision of a technocratic society
(Fischer 69). Technocratic governance, or
Technocracy, is a governmental system
where scientists and technicians act as
the sole decision-making body. This
inherently anti-democratic concept
originated within esoteric circles. Sir
Francis Bacon developed the original model
for Technocracy in his book, The New
Atlantis. Published in 1627, The
New Atlantis was adorned with the
symbols of occult Freemasonry and
presented the Rosicrucian mandate for the
formation of an "Invisible
College" (Howard 74-75). Bacon
himself was a member of the secret Order
of the Helmet and, some allege, a Grand
Master of the secret Rosicrucian Order
(74). The Utopia presented by Bacon in The
New Atlantis was "a pure
Technocratic society" (Fischer
66-67). The philosopher kings of Plato’s
Republic were to be replaced by a
"technical elite" (66-67).
Scientists and technicians would
circumvent conflicting political
interests, giving rise to an apolitical
bureaucracy.
Technocratic
ideas constituted a portion of the
conceptual and philosophical foundation
for modern socialist totalitarian
governance. Of course, a majority of
socialist totalitarian regimes that have
populated modernity have been overtly
hostile towards theistic faiths,
particularly Christianity. This derision
for theistic faiths is attributable to the
characteristic scientism of technocratic
theory. Because the soul, angels, demons,
and God Himself are neither quantifiably
or empirically demonstrable entities, they
have no place within a technocratic
society. Science becomes the new expositor
of miracles, revelation, and truth. In Brave
New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley
described this scientistic form of
governance:
"The
older dictators fell because they could
never supply their subjects with enough
bread, enough circuses, enough miracles,
and mysteries. Under a scientific
dictatorship, education will really work'
with the result that most men and women
will grow up to love their servitude and
will never dream of revolution. There
seems to be no good reason why a
thoroughly scientific dictatorship should
ever be overthrown. (116)"
Paradoxical
though it may seem, this is the occult,
anti-theistic, anti-Christian tradition
from whence Dominionism actually hails.
Secular progressives often cite
Dominionism as a "war against the
Enlightenment." However, a
comparative examination of Dominionism and
the revolutionary faith of the
Enlightenment reveals more parallels than
either side would care to admit.
Interestingly,
Dominionism slightly inverts the
traditional sociopolitical Utopian
formula. Instead of being a secular
movement with all of the sociological
trappings of a religion, Dominionism is a
religion with all of the sociological
trappings of a secular movement.
Nevertheless, like its sociopolitical
Utopian predecessors, Dominionism pursues
the neo-Gnostic objective of immanentizing
the Eschaton. For the Dominionist,
Jesus’ kingdom is a secular government
established and maintained through secular
institutions.
Dominionism
also gives credence to the Gnostic
doctrine of self-salvation. According to
Dominionist theology, Jesus is either
unwilling or unable to return to earth. If
this is true, then Christ’s role as
Savior is nullified. After all, the
Scriptures state that Christ’s return
will represent the final installment in
humanity’s salvation. Hebrews 9:28
declares: "So Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of many; and unto them
that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation"
(emphasis added). According to Dominionism,
man, not God, shall make His Kingdom come.
Thus, the final installation of
humanity’s salvation is left in the
hands of man himself. In fact, John Hagee,
a prominent Dominionist, has openly
rejected Jesus as the Messiah in his
latest book In Defense of Israel,
("Jesus did not come to be the
Messiah?" no pagination). Instead,
Hagee totally politicizes Jesus’ mission
and characterizes Him as an
"insurrectionist" (no
pagination). Thus, Jesus becomes little
more than a role model for
revolutionaries.
Re-sculpting
Jesus according to revolutionary designs
is another Dominionist practice that can
be traced back to the Enlightenment. Adam
Weishaupt, an Enlightenment thinker and
the founder of the infamous Bavarian
Illuminati, presented his adherents with
another Christ. This Christ preached more
of a Jacobin gospel, advocating a radical
Utopian revolution that would instantiate
a heavenly kingdom within the ontological
confines of this world.
The
Illuminist conception of Christ was purely
socialistic in character. Weishaupt
himself claimed that " if Jesus
preaches contempt of riches, He wishes to
teach us the reasonable use of them and
prepare for the community of goods
introduced by Him" (Webster, Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, no
pagination). This sounds more like Marxism
made flesh, not the Word made flesh. Of
course, all of the stated goals of the
Illuminati virtually mirrored the
objectives presented in the Communist
Manifesto. Moreover, the French
Revolution, which represented the nadir of
the Enlightenment, supplied a working
model for all subsequent socialist
revolutionary movements. Dominionism is
just one more installment in this
ideological continuum.
Like the
Dominionist Christ, the Illuminist Christ
was a totally secular Messiah. His mission
was a political one, not a spiritual one.
In regards to Jesus, Weishaupt states:
"The
secret preserved through the Disciplinam
Arcani, and the aim appearing through all
His words and deeds, is to give back to
men their original liberty and equality. .
. . Now one can understand how far Jesus
was the Redeemer and Saviour of the world.
(Webster, Secret Societies and
Subversive Movements, no
pagination)"
In keeping
with his esoteric heritage, Weishaupt's
Christ was an obscurantist and a secret
teacher of older occult doctrines:
"No
one . . . has so cleverly concealed the
high meaning of His teaching, and no one
finally has so surely and easily directed
men on to the path of freedom as our great
master Jesus of Nazareth. This secret
meaning and natural consequence of His
teaching He hid completely, for Jesus had
a secret doctrine, as we see in more than
one place of the Scriptures. (Webster, Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, no
pagination)"
As a
product of the Enlightenment, the
Illuminati exhibited the same sort of
scientism that was characteristic of that
period. In accordance with their strident
scientific materialism, Weishaupt and his
fellow Illuminists presented a Christ that
was bereft of any supernatural qualities.
The Illuminist Christ was a technocratic
Avatar that preached a Gnostic gospel of
self-salvation. This doctrine of
self-salvation held aloft human reason and
the cognitive powers of man as the new
incarnation of revelatory knowledge, a
scientistic version of gnosis
so-to-speak. John Robison explains:
"Jesus
Christ is represented as the enemy of
superstitious observances, and the
assertor of the Empire of Reason and of
Brotherly love, and his death and memory
as dear to mankind. This evidently paves
the way for Weishaupt's Christianity. (No
pagination)"
Weishaupt's
Illuminist colleague, Baron von Knigge,
reiterates this scientistic portrait of
Jesus:
"Jesus
Christ established no new Religion; he
would only set Religion and Reason in
their ancient rights. For this purpose he
would unite men in a common bond. He would
fit them for this by spreading a just
morality, by enlightening the
understanding, and by assisting the mind
to shake off all prejudices. He would
teach all men, in the first place, to
govern themselves. Rulers would then be
needless, and equality and liberty would
take place without any revolution, by the
natural and gentle operation of reason and
expediency. This great Teacher allows
himself to explain every part of the Bible
in conformity to these purposes; and he
forbids all wrangling among his scholars,
because every man may there find a
reasonable application to his peculiar
doctrines. Let this be true or false, it
does not signify. This was a simple
Religion, and it was so far inspired; but
the minds of his hearers were not fitted
for receiving these doctrines. I told you,
says he, but you could not bear it. Many
therefore were called, but few were
chosen." (Qutd. In Robison, no
pagination)"
Instantiating
the Kingdom of God was never man’s
responsibility and to assert otherwise is
to assert that God is no longer sovereign.
Man becomes the center of the universe and
beyond. In effect, Dominionism affirms the
dictum of Protagoras: "Man is the
measure of all things." This is
vintage anthropocentricism, which was a
hallmark of the Enlightenment. Randall
Herbert Balmer, a professor of American
religious history, has correctly
identified the anthropocentric elements of
Dominionism ("Dominionism," no
pagination).
Moreover,
the Dominionist mandate to immanentize the
Eschaton rejects cognitio fidei.
Man can no longer have faith for
Christ’s return. He must transform
God’s Kingdom, which is an object of
faith, into an object of immanent
experience. Dominionists cannot "walk
by faith, not by sight." To
paraphrase Voegelin, the Dominionist must
draw the transcendental elements of
Christianity into a firmer grip than the cognitio
fidei will afford.
Christian
Reconstructionism is considered an example
of Dominionism in reformed theology
("Dominionism," no pagination).
Christian Reconstructionism originated
with Rousas John Rushdoony, a Calvinist
theologian, philosopher, and historian
("Rousas John Rushdoony," no
pagination). Rushdoony argued that the
American Revolution owed nothing to the
Enlightenment (no pagination).
Simultaneously, Rushdoony’s Christian
Reconstructionism teaches cessationism,
which rejects the operation of the
charismatic gifts in this modern era
("Dominionism," no pagination).
The irony becomes clear when one considers
the fact that cessationism is premised
upon a "rationalistic,
Enlightenment-era, unbiblical notion of
‘miracle’" ("Cessationism,"
no pagination). Indeed, the rejection of
miracles, along with all supernatural and
supra-sensible phenomenons, was a hallmark
of Enlightenment rationalism. David Hume,
who was one of the Enlightenment’s
leading theoreticians, argued against the
existence of miracles in An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding. In
this tract of radical empiricism, Hume
defines a miracle as "a transgression
of a law of nature by a particular
volition of the Deity, or by the
interposition of some invisible
agent" (no pagination). Yet, Hume
argues, the natural order is governed by
laws established by "a firm and
unalterable experience" (no
pagination). Experientially, miracles
boast fewer witnesses than natural
phenomena. Thus, Hume asserts, the
evidence against miracles will always
outweigh the evidence for them:
"Nothing
is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen
in the common course of nature. It is no
miracle that a man, seemingly in good
health, should die on a sudden: because
such a kind of death, though more unusual
than any other, has yet been frequently
observed to happen. But it is a miracle,
that a dead man should come to life;
because that has never been observed in
any age or country. (No pagination)"
Though this
argument has come to comprise the
intellectual arsenal of both atheists and
cessationists alike, it is not as sound as
it may seem. George Campbell, a fellow
Enlightenment thinker, revealed that
Hume’s argument was circular. Hume’s
argument is premised upon the contention
that natural laws are affirmed by the
testimony of percipients everywhere
without exception. However, Campbell
observes that such testimony qualifies as
exceptionless only if one completely
precludes the occurrence of miracles (no
pagination). Nevertheless, the
Enlightenment-era rejection of miracles
was adopted by Rushdoony and became a
centerpiece of Christian Reconstructionism.
Interestingly
enough, the rejection of miracles was
central to the authoritarian society
proposed by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan.
Hobbes, who was a radical empiricist and
materialist, rejected divine revelation on
the grounds that such experiences could
imperil so-called "civil order."
Hobbes begins with a critique of all
claimants to supernatural revelation:
"When
God speaketh to man, it must be either
immediately or by mediation of another
man, to whom He had formerly spoken by
Himself immediately. How God speaketh to a
man immediately may be understood by those
well enough to whom He hath so spoken; but
how the same should be understood by
another is hard, if not impossible, to
know. For if a man pretend to me that God
hath spoken to him supernaturally, and
immediately, and I make doubt of it, I
cannot easily perceive what argument he
can produce to oblige me to believe it.
(No pagination)"
While
Hobbes’ argument totters perilously on
the edge of agnosticism, he never firmly
commits himself to rejecting the
Scriptures. Hobbes continues:
"So
that it is manifest that the teaching of
the religion which God hath established,
and the showing of a present miracle,
joined together, were the only marks
whereby the Scripture would have a true
prophet. (No pagination)"
Hobbes
argues that the cessation of miracles
upholds both the validity of the
Scriptures and the divine right of the
"governors of earth":
"Seeing
therefore miracles now cease, we have no
sign left whereby to acknowledge the
pretended revelations or inspirations of
any private man; nor obligation to give
ear to any doctrine, farther than it is
conformable to the Holy Scriptures , which
since the time of our Saviour supply the
place and sufficiently recompense the want
of all other prophecy; and from which, by
wise and learned interpretation, and
careful ratiocination, all rules and
precepts necessary to the knowledge of our
duty both to God and man, without
enthusiasm, or supernatural inspiration,
may easily be deduced. And this Scripture
is it out of which I am to take the
principles of my discourse concerning the
rights of those that are the supreme
governors on earth of Christian
Commonwealths, and of the duty of
Christian subjects towards their
sovereigns. (No pagination)"
How
convenient! Thus, Hobbes manages to
satisfy both his materialistic and
authoritarian propensities with a single
argument. Hobbes was not the only
authoritarian whose so-called "civil
order" was threatened by miracles.
Both communists and fascists expressed a
characteristic derision for miracles and
the supernatural. Such phenomenon defied
quantification and, as such, posed a
serious challenge to the scientistic
suppositions of scientific socialism.
Likewise, Christian Reconstructionism
relies on cessationism because miracles,
signs, and wonders could potentially
challenge the political leaders and
machinations that it seeks to enshrine.
As a
derivation of Christian Reconstructionism,
Dominionism exhibits a strand of
cessationist thought. In cessationism, the
Believer is presented with a deistic
Christ. Either unwilling to or incapable
of exercising His powers in the affairs of
man, the cessationist God is tantamount to
an absentee landlord. Likewise, the
Dominionist Christ is either unwilling to
or incapable of establishing His own
kingdom. Thus, it is the Dominionist's
duty to make "His Kingdom come."
In true neo-Gnostic fashion, the
Dominionist must redirect his or her
complete attention towards the ontological
plane of the physical universe. After all,
the corrupted creation must be transformed
before the Dominionist Christ can
reappear. Dominionism merely reiterates
the dictum of communism, fascism, and
other strains of secular Gnosticism:
"We must save ourselves!"
It is true
that some Dominionists are not purely
cessationists. In fact, some Dominionists
are also charismatics. According to Sarah
Leslie, the Dominionist recruitment
strategy operates in a "dialectical
fashion," targeting both charismatics
and more traditional denominations (no
pagination). However, the postmillenial
eschatology of Dominionism exhibits the
same sort of deistic overtones that are
prevalent within cessationism. Both the
Dominionist and the cessationist proffer
an absentee landlord as God. The logical
conclusion of such deistic thinking is
that the Lord will not move. Instead, the
hand of man must move. Such a conclusion
is not too far from the contentions of
earlier sociopolitical Utopians. Many
sociopolitical Utopians were either deists
or outright atheists. Convinced that God
was either an incomprehensible irrelevancy
or just plain fantasy, these political
radicals promoted a "heaven" of
their own. That "heaven" could
only be obtained through revolution.
Not
surprisingly, the Promethean faith of
early socialist revolutionaries was
accompanied by an eschatology that closely
resembles Dominionism's postmillenial
eschatology. The Promethean radical's
eschatology was underpinned by "the
more pointed, millennial assumption that,
on the new day that was dawning, the sun
would never set" (Billington 6).
Billington states that the tumult of the
"French upheaval" birthed a
"solar myth of the revolution"
(6). This "solar myth" contended
that "the sun was rising on a new era
in which darkness would vanish
forever" (6). This ideational
contagion became embedded "at a level
of consciousness that simultaneously
interpreted something real and produced a
new reality" (6). This "new
reality,' which was to be created by the
hand of man himself, was symbolically
encapsulated within "an all-seeing
eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus
Ordo Seclorum" (6). Again, the
theme of an earthly kingdom constructed by
and maintained through purely secular
power becomes prevalent. Dominionism
merely represents another variant of the
sociopolitical Utopian aspiration to
create a Novus Ordo Seclorum,
albeit with an ostensibly Christian
veneer.
Christian
Reconstructionism is the "most
prominent formulation" of Dominionism
("Dominionism," no pagination).
Christian Reconstructionism's
authoritarian character is evidenced by
the fact that it posits Calvinism as the
"basis for personal regeneration that
is required to change people before
changes occur in the broader culture"
("Christian Reconstructionism,"
no pagination). Calvinism promoted a
doctrine of predestination, which
presented the following contentions:
That all
humans are, inherently wicked and offend
God;
That there
is an elect that God chose to be saved
regardless of their actions and how
deserving;
That Jesus
died just for those special elect, not for
everyone;
That once
God has chosen an elect they are saved by
irresistible grace no matter what;
That these
elect or Saints cannot fall from grace
once saved. (Millegan 405)
According
to Calvinism, there is only abundant life
for some. Jesus Christ did not "set
the captives" free. He merely
affirmed the elitist pedigree of a few. In
Haeckelian terms, supernatural selection
is "aristocratic in the strictest
sense of the word." The vast majority
of humanity can only expect death, both
physical and spiritual, irrespective of
the individual's capacity for accepting
for Christ as savior. With its mandate for
a theocratic state ruled by a select few,
Dominionism echoes such elitist
sentiments.
Given the
prevalence of Dominionist thinking in the
Bush White House, this thread of Calvinist
themes becomes even more significant.
George W. Bush is a member of Skull and
Bones, a secret society headquartered at
Yale University. Yale was established and
administrated by Calvinist clerics (Millegan
417). Bonesmen like Bush could possibly be
guided by "Hyper-Calvinist beliefs of
Hell, predestination, and infallible
salvation mixed with potent duality of
Western Ritual Magic tradition"
(419). If such beliefs pervade the present
administration, then it is only natural
for the Bush White House to be so amicable
to the Dominionist agenda.
The Bush
White House's acceptance of several
Dominionist principles represents another
point of convergence between Dominionism
and the Enlightenment. One of the factions
that has enjoyed political ascendancy
under the Bush Administration is the
neoconservative wing of the Establishment.
The religious right, which is a breeding
ground for Dominionism, has wholeheartedly
embraced this wing of the Establishment.
Randall Balmer observes: "The leaders
of the religious right have led their
sheep astray from the gospel of Jesus
Christ to the false gospel of
neoconservative ideology and into the maw
of the Republican Party" (no
pagination). This embrace is especially
paradoxical in light of
neoconservativism's Enlightenment
pedigree. James Kurth identifies
neoconservativism as a continuation of the
Enlightenment tradition:
"From
their origins (be it as followers of Leon
Trotsky or of Leo Strauss),
neoconservatives have seen the Christian
tradition as an alien, even a threatening,
one. As for the classical tradition, their
view of it has been formed by the
decidedly untraditional interpretation of
classical philosophy given by Strauss. The
only Western tradition that the
neoconservatives actually want to defend
is the Enlightenment. They have wanted
to defend it against attacks emanating
from postmodernists, and in recent years,
they have wanted to advance it in the rest
of the world with the establishment of a
kind of American empire. This latter is
not a conservative project but a radical
and revolutionary one. For the most part,
it might be said that, with friends like
the neoconservatives, Western civilization
does not need enemies. (No pagination;
emphasis added)"
Numerous
scholars have identified the ideological
parallels between neoconservativism and
the violent, revolutionary wing of the
Enlightenment. Most notably, Claes G. Ryns
exhaustively enumerates the various
similarities between radical,
Illuminist-bred Jacobins and
neoconservatives in his book, America
The Virtuous. Moreover, Lawrence
Wilkerson, who helped Colin Powell
assemble the highly politicized dossier
against Iraq, characterized the
neoconservatives as Jacobins:
"They
are not neo-cons. They are not new
conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their
predecessor is French Revolution leader
Maximilien Robespierre. And to say that
these people are dead, dormant or lying
quiescent is not encouraging because there
are enough of them left. And it's going to
be incumbent on the rest of us, in this
country at least, to watch these trends
and make sure that their ugly head doesn't
rise up and cause more problems in the
future. (Mascolo, no pagination)"
Understandably,
the religious right’s alliance with
neoconservativism appears paradoxical.
However, in light of Dominionism’s
neo-Gnostic, Utopian trappings, the
alliance is more appropriate than it
seems. The resulting aberration from this
hellish union is a violent, revolutionary
movement with the potential of
instantiating the same sort of
technocratic Utopia envisioned by
Enlightenment luminaries like Maximilien
Robespierre, Condorcet, and the infamous
Adam Weishaupt. In essence, Dominionism is
a theistic incarnation of the French
Revolution that proffers the kingdom of a
Jacobin Christ. While secular progressives
routinely debate with rhetoricians from
the religious right, the ideological
skirmishes between the two are superficial
at best. Both polar extremes have
transformed the culture war into a
Hegelian dialectic. The synthesis of these
two ideational entities is a scientific
dictatorship.
Political
Prostitution: McCain Woos the Dominionists
One
organization that has been described as a
Dominionist machination is the Council for
National Policy ("Taking Over the
Republican Party," no pagination).
David D. Kirkpatrick describes the Council
for National Policy (CNP) as follows:
"The
council was founded in 1981, just as the
modern conservative movement began its
ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early
Christian conservative organizer and the
best-selling author of the ''Left Behind''
novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming,
was a founder. His partners included Paul
Weyrich, another Christian conservative
political organizer who also helped found
the Heritage Foundation. They said at the
time that they were seeking to create a
Christian conservative alternative to what
they believed was the liberalism of the
Council on Foreign Relations. (No
pagination)"
This
description is terribly incomplete. What
Kirkpatrick fails to mention (either out
of ignorance or partisan bias) is the fact
that the first Governing Board of the CNP
had three CFR members: Dr. Edward Teller,
George F. Gilder, and Guy Vander Jagt (Aho,
pagination). Two later CNP members, Arnaud
De Borchgrave and J. Peter Grace, were
also CFR members (no pagination). Given
these dubious associations, the CNP’s
opposition to the CFR would appear to be
somewhat disingenuous.
The CNP’s
conservative veneer is even less
convincing. One of the chief financiers of
Paul Weyrich’s Heritage Foundation is
Richard Mellon Scaife. Washington Post
journalists Robert G. Kaiser and Ira
Chinoy reveal Scaife’s ties to this
so-called "right-wing"
organization:
"The
Heritage Foundation became an important
part of the right's community-building
efforts. Scaife first contributed to
Heritage in 1974. Soon afterward, using
money from Scaife, Heritage established
its resource bank, a compilation of
conservative organizations, which from
1982 was published in the Directory of
Public Policy Organizations, a guide to
the new right-wing establishment. The
current edition lists 300 groups; 111 have
received grants from Scaife, 76 of them in
1998. Heritage, organized by former staff
assistants to Republican lawmakers whose
goal was to influence both Congress and
the news media with a stream of brief,
meaty position papers on issues of the
day, became Scaife's favorite beneficiary.
When it began to make a mark in the
mid-1970s, Joseph Coors, the beer magnate,
was commonly credited as its chief
financial patron. Coors did put up the
first $250,000. But within two years,
according to Heritage officials, Scaife
had given more than twice as much, and he
has kept on giving ever since – more
than $23 million in all, or about $34
million in inflation-adjusted, current
dollars. At Heritage the joke was,
"Coors gives six-packs; Scaife gives
cases." With Scaife's early
contributions, Heritage could thrive. In
1976, Heritage's third year of operation,
Scaife gave $420,000, or 42 percent of the
foundation's total income of $1,008,557.
This early support was "absolutely
critical," said the president of the
foundation, Edwin J. Feulner Jr. Scaife
continues to give generously to Heritage
– $1.3 million in 1998. But Heritage
took in $43 million last year, so his gift
represented just 3 percent of its income.
(No pagination)"
While
Scaife has financially supported
ostensibly conservative organizations like
the Heritage Foundation, he has also
donated considerable sums of money to
left-wing affiliations. These include
Planned Parenthood:
"Scaife
has long favored abortion rights, to the
chagrin of many of those he has supported.
In the first years of his philanthropy he
stuck to a pattern set by his mother and
sister and gave millions to Planned
Parenthood and other population control
groups, though most such giving stopped in
the 1970s. (No pagination)"
Why would
Scaife finance both conservative and
liberal organizations? More importantly,
why would CNP member Weyrich accept money
from someone who openly financed causes
that most Christians find morally
objectionable? These actions bespeak a
decidedly pragmatic Weltanschauung among
prominent CNP members and their
associates. Ultimately, the CNP is neither
Christian nor conservative. It is just
another conduit for elitist interests. The
organization’s façade is designed to
draw in Christians and conservatives.
Thoroughly seduced by the CNP’s
traditional veneer, these parties can be
mobilized in support of elitist agendas.
Just how
much political capital does the CNP wield?
Evidently, the organization has enough
power to attract the sole Republic
candidate for the 2008 presidential
election: John McCain. In hopes of
garnering Dominionist support for his
presidential bid, McCain addressed the CNP
in March 2008 (Hallow, "McCain courts
top conservatives," no pagination).
McCain’s appearance at the CNP was
considered a flop by many of the attendees
(no pagination). Those critical of McCain
included CNP participants Janice Crouse
and Richard A. Viguerie (no pagination).
However, Crouse stated that McCain might
receive the support he was looking for
because he was considered the only real
viable alternative to Barak Obama and
Hilary Clinton (no pagination). McCain may
begin to cater to the desires of the CNP
and other Dominionists as a means of
securing victory over his Democrat
competitor.
Covert
Operations and Dominionist Activism
Dominionists
are not content to leave other people
alone. Their doctrine requires that
they impose their Utopian vision upon the
rest of humanity. Dominionist activism can
take many different forms. One of the most
sinister manifestations of Dominionist
activism is covert operations. One
Dominionist involved in the covert realm
is CNP participant Richard Viguerie.
Viguerie was also a
