Introduction

Overview

In this chapter, I introduce dominion theology and explain why I believe it constitutes a distinct concept rather than merely an addendum to the study of fundamentalism or evangelicalism. Nevertheless, I assert the claim to orthodoxy of dominionism by locating it firmly within evangelicalism, then workout the distinctives of dominion theology from within that general framework. I then outline the methodological assumptions and approaches of this book, finishing with a description of hypotheses examined within the book, and a brief outline of how the chapters attempt to address them.

Locating Dominion Theology

The subject of this book is dominion theology—its development and contemporary expression with a view to prognosticating its future within Christianity, and to demonstrate an application of it in political practice. To the layperson, the term “dominion theology,” rather like the term “fundamentalism,” has acquired a pejorative sense, and the designation has become so vague that there is often a struggle to understand what is meant. However, one does understand that, like the term “fundamentalist,” it is associated with a fanatical and extreme interpretation of orthodox Christian beliefs. Indeed, the militancy associated with “dominionists” often result in a conflation with the fundamentalists by political liberals and liberal theological critics.[1] In my view, this is not a useful designation unless it is carefully qualified because, even as the movement grew and exerted its influence, many fundamentalist, evangelical, and Pentecostal leaders were most notable in their failure to credit the dominionist movement or in their open hostility to it.[2]

The Relationship to Evangelicalism

In contrast to this generalizing proposition, a key presupposition of this book is that dominionism, like fundamentalism, is only correctly understood when considered within the context of a distinct and orthodox grouping within conservative evangelicalism.[3] I propose they are representative of distinct hermeneutical traditions within evangelicalism, resulting from a very specific historical context and a distinct set of philosophical and theological ideas.[4]

I wish to emphasize this principle here as there have, at times, been an intense polemic between dominion theologians and the more traditional evangelicalisms where the orthodoxy of dominionism is questioned or denied.[5] In return, dominionists have accused the fundamentalists of a rank “dereliction of duty,” of servile “subordinationism,” and it is they, rather than fundamentalists, that represent a return to the truly biblical Christianity.[6]

With such passion on either side, it is easy for this polemic to eclipse the important fact that the arguments between the parties are more accurately described as ideological arguments about Christian praxis resulting from a distinct interpretation of Scripture rather than more fundamental theological ones about the status of Scripture itself.

Indeed, some pivotal figures of the dominionist movement were also recognized as significant within fundamentalist circles and were often misidentified as fundamentalists, owing to the shared commitment to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures.[7] Hence, it is within this understanding and theological framework that I assert that dominion theology does, in its purest form, belong to orthodox Reformed evangelical theology because it is understood in its broadest sense as having the following characteristics:

1. Christianityfor whom the Scriptures, rather than church tradition or papal sanction, have the “ultimate authority in matters of spirituality, doctrine and ethics.”[8]
2. Christianity that “confines and submits [itself] completely to the teaching of the Bible.”[9]
3. Christianity that submits to the “fundamental and inalienable authority of scripture.”[10]

Where it is distinctively different from other forms of conservative evangelicalism is in its view of Christianity’s place in the wider culture and the discussions of the public square. Dominion theology is not content for the evangelical Christian faith to be a “deeply private matter” but argues its voice is legitimately applicable to the problems of the public domain and that its intellectual coherence warrants that it should be heard there. It is this practical context in which dominion theology sees and positions itself that I believe explains the controversy surrounding the movement.

The Importance of Dominion Theology

For example, in 1988, one fundamentalist opponent of the youthful dominion theology movement described it as “one of the fastest growing movements amongst evangelicals today.”[11] This use of the designator evangelical, and not fundamentalist, by a critic was in fact an admission of the theological orthodoxy of the movement. It was clearly exerting far more influence within modern Christianity than would a fringe radical group; it was clearly appealing to mainstream theological conservatives. Thus, it is necessary to carefully consider both the theology of dominionism and how it came to exert this influence and appeal.

The Approach of This Book

In light of our argument above, the approach of this book necessarily stands in contrast to the general historical, sociological, or psychological approaches that are characteristic of recent studies of what humanism has described as religious fundamentalism or religious studies.[12] These have typically employed a “historical-reductionist” critical approach based on the thesis that “fundamentalism” (of which dominionism would be a genus) is in fact a “trans-religious, trans-national and trans-cultural” phenomenon based on shared ideological assumptions and anti-modern worldviews irrespective of their particularist expression.[13] Typically, they may also assign a correlative psychological category specifically applicable to the fundamentalists in question.[14]

Thus, the description is entirely naturalistic, and it neatly and completely sidesteps any theological dimension of the phenomenon. So, for example, once when attending a conference breakout discussion, the session leader corrected me by insisting the word “spiritual” be replaced with “religious,” otherwise, we were not having a “scientific” discussion but a “theological” one. The implication was clear: theological language was clearly unscientific, and it certainly was not “queen of the sciences.” For such thinkers, “dominionism” should be made a general political, sociological, or psychological category to assist in generating analytical models in this naturalistic way.[15]

In my view, the consequence of this reductionism and humanistic presuppositional approach is that there is an obfuscation and dilution of the salient conceptual distinctives.[16] The resulting pseudoscientific sociological or political analysis based upon these humanistic working assumptions can only ever neatly reclassify the entire movement as a “reaction to modernism,” an expression of the “American political right,” the alt-right, “Christian Nationalism,” or another “conservative” movement.[17] Such an approach, I have previously argued, is rather like describing the Tyne Bridge to “Geordies” in terms of the number of nuts and bolts and the amount of metal it contains—this is accurate but irrelevant to its enormous power as a symbol of the city to those living there or in exile.[18] I argued there that whilst empirical profiling is useful and necessary, it is also in many philosophical and theological contexts, as Wittgenstein made clear, an approach that gives us no cogent epistemological or semantic benefit, “No fact (experience) justifies [dominion theology] and none can overturn it.”[19]

Thus, my approach will be (without ignoring the insights of the humanistic mode of analysis when appropriate) to keep a focus on the distinctively Christian thinking and the progression of that thinking within the Christian tradition. I believe this is a prerequisite to understanding correctly Christian dominion theology. However, some elucidation to this principle should be made. The Christian tradition is broad and frequently at odds with itself; traditional Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism proceed on a substantially different epistemological basis. Orthodox Catholicism considers the natural law theology of Aquinas as normative. In contrast, classical Protestantism took its direction from Augustinianism, which denied such a natural theology was possible. We are arguing from the Augustinian presumption.[20]

Nevertheless, movements do exist at specific times in specific cultures, and it must be recognized that as history proceeds, the very success of a movement may mean the adoption and modification of aspects of their program by other conservative elements, as seen in the Christian Manifesto of Francis Schaeffer and the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell.[21] There were sociological, political, and even psychological dimensions to these movements that are useful and even necessary to consider in properly comprehending them. Movements are more than ideologies, even if ideology gives a movement its basic character; the culture of the nation, international priorities, influences, and constraints will all affect the working out of a movement. This will most certainly be the case where “secular” appropriations have exerted a reverse influence on the praxis of parent theological movements and have even resulted in cooperation between or common cause with some non-Christian elements. History has shown that when a Christian organization enters the political arena, it often seeks self-conscious redefinition.[22]

Dominion theology has been particularly sensitive to these cultural factors. Christians around the world have responded dramatically differently to the advocation for a more muscular presence for Christians in the public square. As a rule, believers in the West, where Christianity has been tolerated on the outer rims of culture, have often opposed dominion theology, seeking earnestly again to be “quiet Christians.” In contrast, those in countries that have had historically to contend for their freedom, such as in Central and South America or in parts of Africa, have frequently been far more aware of the need for a Christian reconstruction of all the institutions of the state. Thus, this book recognizes these variables and, alongside establishing its theological orthodoxy and philosophical coherence, argues also regarding the practical instantiation of dominionism.

Summary

I began by asserting and then proceeded to prove that dominion theology is a legitimate and distinct theological category. Owing to this status, I argued it is worth studying in terms of itself and warranting a coherent analysis to benefit both those within and those apart from the movement. Many within the movement are unaware of the history and theology of the movement. Many apart from the movement have simply collapsed dominionism into the fundamentalist category. I have asserted that my approach centers on a Calvinistic, Reformed theological analysis and is firmly philosophically Augustinian. We also observed that there are historical, sociological, philosophical, and spiritual variables to consider in our analysis.

In brief, going forward, we argue to elucidate the following two propositions and to answer the following two questions:

• Dominion theology cannot be understood apart from the historical situation or sociological context and movements that helped shape it.
• The emergence and dominance of secularism, scientific humanism, and scientismwere major cultural factors in the development of dominion theology.[23]
• Does dominion theology continue to exist as a coherent movement or have its ideas been absorbed into the wider Christian movement?
• How are we to apply dominion theology to our lived Christian experiencewithin our sociopolitical environment?

Chapter Outlines

Chapter 2: The Main Divisions of “Last Days” Thinking  and Their Relation to Dominion Theology

Dominion theology is rooted in a specific view of the “last days” that is a specific eschatological understanding. This chapter gives an overview of the main divisions of eschatology (premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism) and identifies their relationship to dominion theology.

Chapter 3: The Precursors of Modern Dominion Theology

The context for the emergence of modern dominion theology was the cultural revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The chapter thus focuses on the identification of the cultural issues that arguably caused modern dominion theology to emerge as a distinct category during the 1960s.[24]

Chapter 4: The Emergence of Modern Dominion Theology

This is really the story of the work of one man, Rousas Rushdoony. His philosophy and theology are considered in depth, and it is demonstrated how it became a coherent sociological program that envisaged an entire reconstruction of society on a Christian basis. It examines how he rejected the social gospel movement, how he developed a critique of the modern state, and how he argued for Christian “epistemological self-consciousness” from the apologetic theology and Christian philosophy of Van Til. It finishes with how he applied biblical law as the basis of societal reformation and reconstruction.

Chapter 5: The Dominionist Movement

The purpose of this chapter is to describe how the dominionist movement developed its program to the point of international recognition and presence within a diverse range of Christian practice. It examines how Rushdoony’s Reconstructionist movement developed and the various emphases that emerged within different streams of the movement as it grew. It then examines how the ideas of the movement became influential more generally within Christianity.

Chapter 6: Critiques and Their Evaluation

Critics often accuse dominionists of “worldliness,” because of the focus on the reformation of temporal culture, and of misunderstanding the relationship of the Old Testament Law to the New Testament dispensation in arguing for theonomy. I examine these core criticisms of dominionism, the responses of dominion theology to these criticisms, and evaluate their relative cogency.

Chapter 7: The Philosophy of Christian Involvement

Revivalism and fundamentalism progressively denuded modern Christian thought and culture of the rationale for active participation in the wider culture and, most specifically, in the political realm. This is where we examine how dominion theology should be applied in the cultural and political context of our present age and lived Christian experience.

Conclusion

I consider the degree that the statements and questions posed above have been answered by considering the current state and future prognosis of dominion theology.

[1] For example, Pelletier, “Movement,” and PRO-S.O.C.S, “Righteous Revolution,” respectively.

[2] For example, in Dobson et al., Fundamentalist Phenomenon. None of the authors mention the most visible of the American dominionists at the time they were writing, the Reconstructionists, despite it being empirically the Reconstructionist program that they had adopted (e.g., political vision, Dobson et al., Fundamentalist Phenomenon, 186; and millennialism, 71). See also McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 15.

[3] Poythress, Inerrancy and Worldview, 13n1.

[4] “It is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic—that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds.” Packer, Introduction to Covenant Theology, loc. 22.

[5] Clapp, “Democracy as Heresy”; Lindsey, Road to Holocaust, 282.

[6] For example, Rushdoony, God’s Plan for Victory, 175–213.

[7] Perhaps the most famous example of this conflation of categories was in Barr’s Fundamentalism of 1977/84, where he wants to argue that Machen and Warfield were “fundamentalists.” Probably, more than any other book, this critique of “fundamentalism” was highly influential because of Barr’s enormous reputation as a biblical scholar and liberal-evangelical, but it suffered from some serious misunderstandings and failures to distinguish between the various forms of conservative evangelicalism.

In reality, Machen and Warfield were orthodox Presbyterians with beliefs highly divergent from the premillennialism and Arminianism that were not just distinctive of the early fundamentalists but demanded as a standard of Christian “orthodoxy.” Some fundamentalists went as far to challenge Machen’s orthodoxy on this basis; Warfield’s progressive track in his eschatology, from classical postmillennialism to a more mystical conception of a triumph of the saints in heaven, and his rigorous commitment to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures made him much more amenable to and influential with the fundamentalists.

[8] McGrath, Passion for Truth, 22.

[9] Lloyd-Jones, What Is an Evangelical?, 42.

[10] McGrath, Passion for Truth, 23.

[11] House and Ice, Dominion Theology, back matter.

[12] Almond et al., Strong Religion. This was a particularly interesting book written in the wake of the decade-long fundamentalism project at the University of Chicago, especially significant as the authors had established the project. The project was an enormous analysis of fundamentalism working on the assumption there was a unifying conceptual basis for the category, a set of characteristics that all religious “fundamentalisms” shared. In fact, it is arguable it established precisely the opposite, and this book should have been written before the project ever started as the thesis to be tested by the project.

[13] Macneil, “Fundamentalism as a Modernism,” 1–2; Almond et al., Strong Religion, 9–14.

[14] Barr, Fundamentalism, xi. Barr gave more attention to the psychological argument in this preface to his 2nd edition. He had become more hostile to the fundamentalists in the seven years between the editions.

[15] The presuppositions of this method of thinking are forcefully critiqued by Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies.

[16] Lloyd-Jones, What Is an Evangelical?, 22–26.

[17] Lawrence, “From Fundamentalism to Fundamentalisms,” 88–101; McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 9–12; Yurica, “Despoiling of America.”

[18] Macneil, “Holistic Context for Understanding,” supporting PowerPoint slide 2. A “Geordie” is national slang for an inhabitant of Newcastle Upon Tyne in North-East England, a city 46 miles (74 km) south of the present Scottish border (the old Roman boundary between the nations was a wall that still runs through what is now the WestEast route across Newcastle, “Hadrians Wall,” which still has visible sections on the route through the city and is a tourist attraction along various sections of its 80 Roman miles.) It derives from the time when the people of Newcastle remained loyal to the English King George, when the Scots attacked the city.

Even though they eventually succumbed to the Scots attack, King George recognized their loyalty and resistance. To this day, Newcastle has remained strongly “English” in identity despite the enormous number of Scots and Irish who took up residence there for work during its heyday as a heavy industrial city. This actually made it far more “Celtic” than English (much like Liverpool), if by “English” you mean the culture of the “South” of England and the satellite shires who consider the “Northerners” like us barbarians that eat children for breakfast, and who need helicopters to drop off food for us in the winter (the latter a true story, despite Newcastle being a stopping point on the main North-South route between London and Edinburgh for centuries!).

[19] Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, 50e.

[20] I consider these issues in more detail in my Foundations. With the embrace of evidentialism within some sections of even the Reformed academy, and with the work of Christian analytic philosophers like Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, the distinction between Catholic and Protestant thought has narrowed. It is noted that some philosophers have explicitly moved from a Reformed position to a Catholic position. However, the point I make here stands: the orthodox or historical versions of the traditions stand substantially opposed to one another in terms of their basic epistemological commitments, i.e., the relationship between faith and reason, does reason provide a basis for faith (Aquinas), or does faith inform the basis of reason (Augustine)?

[21] Wagner, Dominion!, 212–13.

[22] Wagner, On Earth as It Is, 7.

[23] Many readers will be unfamiliar with the rather technical word scientism and its relation to the concept of science. We will discuss this concept in detail at various points, but a good working definition of scientism is the belief that the only questions worth asking are those to which science can give an answer. Thus, according to this view, because “religious” and “spiritual” questions are outside of the purview of science, they are not worth asking or considering.

[24] North, “Cutting Edge,” 1.