{"id":1675,"date":"2026-05-03T17:38:27","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T16:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/?page_id=1675"},"modified":"2026-05-04T16:49:04","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T15:49:04","slug":"introduction","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/dominion-theology-recovering-our-social-and-political-responsibility\/introduction\/","title":{"rendered":"Introduction"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Overview<\/h3>\n

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\u00a0or evangelicalism. Nevertheless, I assert the claim to orthodoxy of dominionism\u00a0by 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.<\/p>\n

Locating Dominion Theology<\/h3>\n

The subject of this book is dominion theology\u2014its 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 \u201cdominion theology,\u201d rather like the term \u201cfundamentalism,\u201d 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<\/em> understand that, like the term \u201cfundamentalist,\u201d it is associated with a fanatical and extreme interpretation of orthodox Christian beliefs. Indeed, the militancy associated with \u201cdominionists\u201d often result in a conflation with the fundamentalists by political liberals<\/a> and liberal theological critics.[1]<\/a> 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\u00a0leaders were most notable in their failure to credit the dominionist movement or in their open hostility to it.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Relationship to Evangelicalism<\/h3>\n

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]<\/a> 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]<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u00a0is questioned or denied.[5]<\/a> In return, dominionists have accused the fundamentalists of a rank \u201cdereliction of duty,\u201d of servile \u201csubordinationism,\u201d and it is they<\/em>, rather than fundamentalists, that represent a return to the truly biblical Christianity.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

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<\/em> arguments about Christian praxis<\/em> resulting from a distinct interpretation of Scripture\u00a0rather than more fundamental theological ones about the status of Scripture\u00a0itself.
\n<\/a>
\nIndeed, some pivotal figures of the dominionist movement were also recognized as significant within fundamentalist\u00a0circles and were often misidentified as fundamentalists, owing to the shared commitment to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures.[7]<\/a> Hence, it is within this understanding and theological framework that I assert that dominion theology\u00a0does<\/em>, in its purest form, belong to orthodox Reformed\u00a0evangelical\u00a0theology because it is understood in its broadest sense as having the following characteristics:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Christianityfor whom the Scriptures, rather than church tradition or papal sanction, have the \u201cultimate authority\u00a0in matters of spirituality, doctrine and ethics.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Christianity that \u201cconfines and submits [itself] completely to the teaching of the Bible.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Christianity that submits to the \u201cfundamental and inalienable authority of scripture.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Where it is distinctively different from other forms of conservative evangelicalism\u00a0is in its view of Christianity\u2019s place in the wider culture and the discussions of the public square. Dominion theology is not content for the evangelical\u00a0Christian faith to be a \u201cdeeply private matter\u201d 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 <\/a>practical<\/em> context in which dominion theology\u00a0sees and positions itself that I believe explains the controversy surrounding the movement.<\/p>\n

    The Importance of Dominion Theology<\/h3>\n

    For example, in 1988, one fundamentalist\u00a0opponent of the youthful dominion theology\u00a0movement described it as \u201cone of the fastest growing movements amongst evangelicals today.\u201d[11]<\/a> This use of the designator evangelical<\/em>, 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\u00a0than would a fringe radical group; it was clearly appealing to mainstream<\/em> theological conservatives. Thus, it is necessary to carefully consider both the theology of dominionism and how it came to exert this influence and appeal.<\/p>\n

    The Approach of This Book<\/h3>\n

    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\u00a0has described as religious fundamentalism\u00a0or religious studies.[12]<\/a> These have typically employed a \u201chistorical-reductionist\u201d critical approach based on the thesis that \u201cfundamentalism\u201d (of which dominionism\u00a0would be a genus<\/em>) is in fact a \u201ctrans-religious, trans-national and trans-cultural\u201d phenomenon based on shared ideological<\/em> assumptions and anti-modern worldviews irrespective of their particularist expression.[13]<\/a> Typically, they may also assign a correlative psychological category specifically applicable to the fundamentalists in question.[14]<\/a>
    \n    <\/a>
    \nThus, 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 \u201cspiritual\u201d be replaced with \u201creligious,\u201d otherwise, we were not having a \u201cscientific\u201d discussion but a \u201ctheological\u201d one. The implication was clear: theological language was clearly unscientific, and it certainly was not \u201cqueen of the sciences.\u201d For such thinkers, \u201cdominionism\u201d should be made a general political, sociological, or psychological category to assist in generating analytical models in this naturalistic way.    [15]<\/a><\/p>\n

    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]<\/a> The resulting pseudoscientific sociological or political analysis based upon these humanistic working assumptions can only ever neatly reclassify the entire movement as a \u201creaction to modernism,\u201d an expression of the \u201cAmerican political right,\u201d the alt-right, \u201cChristian Nationalism,\u201d or another \u201cconservative\u201d movement.[17]<\/a> Such an approach, I have previously argued, is rather like describing the Tyne Bridge to \u201cGeordies\u201d in terms of the number of nuts and bolts and the amount of metal it contains\u2014this is accurate but irrelevant to its enormous power as a symbol of the city to those living there or in exile.[18]<\/a> I argued there that<\/a> whilst empirical profiling is useful and necessary, it is also in many philosophical and theological contexts, as Wittgenstein\u00a0made clear, an approach that gives us no cogent epistemological\u00a0or semantic benefit, \u201cNo fact (experience) justifies [dominion theology] and none can overturn it.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

    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<\/em> thinking and the progression of that thinking within the Christian<\/em> tradition. I believe this is a prerequisite to understanding correctly Christian<\/em> dominion theology. However, some elucidation to this principle should be made. The Christian tradition is broad and frequently at odds with itself; traditional Catholicism\u00a0and orthodox Protestantism proceed on a substantially different epistemological\u00a0basis. Orthodox Catholicism considers the natural law theology of Aquinas\u00a0as normative. In contrast, classical Protestantism\u00a0took its direction from Augustinianism, which denied such a natural theology was possible. We are arguing from the Augustinian\u00a0presumption.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Nevertheless, movements do<\/em> 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<\/em> of Francis Schaeffer\u00a0and the Moral Majority<\/em> of Jerry Falwell.[21]<\/a> There were sociological, political, and even psychological dimensions to these movements that are useful and even necessary<\/em> to consider in properly<\/em> comprehending them. Movements are more than ideologies, even if ideology gives a movement its basic character; the culture of the nation, <\/a>international priorities, influences, and constraints will all affect the working out of a movement. This will most certainly be the case where \u201csecular\u201d 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]<\/a><\/p>\n

    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\u00a0has been tolerated on the outer rims of culture, have often opposed dominion theology, seeking earnestly again to be \u201cquiet Christians.\u201d 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Summary<\/h3>\n

    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<\/em> the movement are unaware of the history and theology of the movement. Many apart<\/em> from the movement have simply collapsed dominionism\u00a0into the fundamentalist\u00a0category. I have asserted that my approach centers on a Calvinistic, Reformed\u00a0theological analysis and is firmly philosophically Augustinian. We also observed that there are historical, sociological, philosophical, and spiritual variables to consider in our analysis.<\/p>\n

    In brief, going forward, we argue to elucidate the following two propositions and to answer the following two questions:<\/p>\n