Sid asked that I drop a post on Dominionism and never one to turn down a reasonable request I figured I’d take a stab. I started out by taking a look in every blogger’s best friend, Wikipedia. According to that vast treasure trove of interesting (and occasionally accurate) information, this particular worldview derives its name from Genesis 1:28. “And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (KJV)

The definition of it is a bit tricky since there are apparently “hard” dominionists and “soft” dominionists and like any other political/theological belief system quite often the people who are called by the name don’t particularly like it and have adopted their own terms. Then there are those on the opposite end of the spectrum who (as often also happens) have developed a conspiracy theory about the hardliners. Because this represents a spectrum of beliefs, I will try and be fair to this view and make only a couple of (hopefully charitable) assumptions, if any.

According to this belief, generally, the dominion mentioned in Genesis extends not only to our biosphere, but also to people relationally. The thought being that we have some sort of responsibility to ensure that men either return to or come under the Law of God as the basis of our rule of law. The end result of this being that all men, Christians and non-Christians, would benefit from what is, arguably, the way God would have all men live. Often the Decalogue is portrayed as directly or indirectly being the basis of our laws specifically or all modern laws generally.

Because of this notion, at least it seems causal to me, and in no small part due to the belief that our founding fathers were at least in some large part Christian, this dominion has also come to include America specifically. This view holds that we were either at one point a Christian nation and need to return to that, or we need to become one in order to fulfill a particular eschatological view. I have also heard it said many times that if we would as a nation turn to God and repent for our sins (as a nation) that we would benefit (as a nation). So the view of America as some sort of body founded by God and beholden to Him also seems core to this point of view.

I have serious problems with both of conclusions. I know that this will not come as a shock to any of you. My problems are’t even mostly political, though I would like to start there. First, I have no problem with the notion that an uncertain percentage of the Founders were Christians. That many of them would have been burned at the stake had they been born in earlier centuries or disfellowshipped/excommunicated in many of our modern churches if born today seems more certain than their number. Let’s assume just for fun though, that a large percentage of them were Christians and that a percentage of that percentage possessed a theology that the Dominionists would be happy with. They simply didn’t seem interested in making this a Christian nation.

“Wait, wait,” I hear you say, “what about the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?”

Well as I said, I don’t have a problem with the notion that these men believed in a Creator or sorts, even one that was or looked like the Christian God. But the Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” seems to shoot the idea that we need to make laws establishing religious ideas… as law right in the foot.

“But what about Patrick Henry who siad ‘It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!’?”

He didn’t actually say that. He did say several great things that I agree with regarding Christianity and the Bible, but nothing indicating that we should be a “Christian nation”. One interesting thing did turn up in my research in this regard. One of the very first treaties we entered into as a country (The Treaty of Tripoli), ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, said the following:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That seems pretty clear to me. But you know what? This whole argument isn’t even the biggest part of where my problem lies. Let’s say that I give you everything that you believe that applies to our founding and the people involved. Suppose we were a Christian Nation in our history. Suppose that all of our laws and core beliefs once upon a time lined up with the Ten Commandments. So what? That doesn’t make it right or biblical.

I’m not trying to be flip here, but nearly everything I read in the Bible indicates that God doesn’t want us as his nation to be ruled by Kings. In 1 Samuel chapter eight the people of Israel asked for a king and God didn’t like it. He granted it though, making sure to have Samuel warn them. God wanted Israel to be ruled by Him, not be a monarchy or even presumably a democracy (though it’s somewhat ironic that apparently the need for a human king was arrived at by the people, the first democratic monarchy?).

Fast forward to Christianity. Paul in Galatians 3 says

“26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

That to me says that our national identity as Christians should be of no importance. Some take that to the place where they don’t even self identify as Americans, at least when it comes to things like politics. Perhaps that’s taking it too far, perhaps not, but at the very least it sticks a thumb in the eye of some Dominionists, or should. We aren’t, at our core as Christians, to put the importance on our gender, our freedom, or our nationality. Those are three pretty important things to most folk, but in Christ we are none of these things. So why should we be pushing to make our leadership consist solely of Christians? It just makes no sense.

One final point and I think that this is my main beef. All of the people I talk to who I would put (correctly or incorrectly) in the Dominionist camp are concerned about the laws of God being followed, not just by Christians, but by everyone. There should be no gay marriage because the Bible says it’s bad. We should have laws against abortion because murder is a sin. We should put the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and leave “In God We Trust” everywhere we can get away with it. Why? Why is putting the Law up front and center and making everyone toe that line so important? Well, why does the Bible say that the law is important?

Paul again in Galatians chapter three:

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

He goes on and on from there. The law is important, yes, but it is not of ultimate importance by itself. It is meant to drive us to Christ. Making those laws into the law of the land does not drive people to Christ. What does it do instead? It controls. That, in a nutshell seems to be what Dominionism is about. I don’t think that’s what God intended.

In the Genesis quote, Adam and Eve are given dominion over all the earth. They are to be its caretakers, its stewards. The Earth is to provide us all food and shelter, but only if we care for it. To take that notion and twist it to say that we should exercise some level of control over every human being so that they must fall into line with our interpretation of the Law seems adversarial to the Gospel to say the very least. If that’s not what Dominionism is saying then I would love for someone to tell me what it is all about. If it is as I suspect though, it’s hardly new. The Pharisees exercised a similar amount of control over their people. They too wanted every aspect of life to be controlled by the Law and we see where that put them in God’s sight.