Here’s the transcript of an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air Programme from
a couple of days ago. It is rather interesting and illustrative because it
demonstrates how Dominionism has crept into the American political scene. Does
Michele Bachmann know who Abraham Kuyper is? Probably not…but his theology is
shaping her and the entire contemporary political debate.
These folks, the interviewer as well as the journalist she’s
interviewing are unbelievers, so from our standpoint they don’t get things
quite right either, and it seems sometimes they’re being a bit alarmist.
But on the other hand…they’re probably not scared enough. I’ve included the link as well as a few comments interspersed in the text.
The
Books And Beliefs Shaping Michele Bachmann
August 9, 2011
Rep. Michele Bachman officially threw her hat
into the presidential ring on June 27. Since then, the Minnesota congresswoman
has emerged as a Republican front-runner, riding on a wave of Tea Party support
and national media appearances.
New Yorker Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza spent four days with Bachmann and her staff aboard their
campaign jet in mid-June. On Tuesday's Fresh Air, he talks about his
unprecedented access to the congresswoman, whom he profiles in the Aug. 15,
2011, edition of The New Yorker. The piece looks at the writers, beliefs
and books that Bachmann has specifically mentioned as major influences in her
life.
"To understand her, you have to
understand the movement that she came out of," Lizza tells Fresh Air's
Terry Gross. "Her early ideological roots were formed by opposition to
abortion ... and she's always been concerned with social issues, the culture
war issues. ... She takes her Christianity very seriously. She comes out of a
religious evangelical conservative movement that is very much concerned with
developing a biblical worldview and applying it to all corners of one's
life."
Proto:
There’s the little
watchword phrase. I doubt this reporter knows where it comes from, but the
‘applying it to all corners of life,’ is Kuyperian, derived from the Dutch
Reformed Theologian Abraham Kuyper. His theology has influenced many and its
failures have manifested themselves in modern Dutch society, South African
Apartheid and the American Christian Right. His thinking applied to different
contexts has proved both ecclesiastically and socially disastrous.
On the one hand,
applying the Bible to all of life is of course a completely Biblical sentiment.
We too want to apply the Bible to all of our lives, but what
Dominionists/Sacralists mean by this is something quite different. I continue
to argue they’re embracing an alien theology and philosophy and then use this
language to then try and Biblically justify what they’re doing and go hunting
through the Bible trying to find textual support for their agenda.
Fresh Air:
For a number of years, Michele Bachmann's
personal website had a list of books she recommended people read. ... I was
looking over the list and noticed this biography of [Robert E.] Lee by [Steven]
Wilkins. [I had] never heard of Wilkins and started looking at who he was. And
frankly couldn't believe that she was recommending this book. ... It is an
objectively pro-slavery book and one of the most startling things I learned
about her in this piece.
- Ryan Lizza
Proto:
Steve Wilkins is an ex-PCA minister and pretty well known
in those circles. I spoke to him many years ago. Part of the Federal Vision
movement, he left the PCA before he was forced out, and joined with Doug
Wilson’s CRE (Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals). This small denomination
is committed to Sacralism. It pretty much dominates who they are.
While I have some sympathies with what these folks were
trying to argue for with regard to the doctrine of salvation, covenant etc…
they are hardliner Dominionists. In fact their form is extreme. They are
Theonomists, Judaizers who believe the Mosaic Law is not only for the New
Covenant Age, but is a-covenantal, for all nations, not merely those (and there
was but one) in covenant with the Lord. Like the Galatians they believe in the
Gospel applied through the lens of the Mosaic Law.
They are Postmillennialists believing the world will
become Christianized in the future and under a unified cultural if not
political order.
And Wilkins represents a particular nuance within the
movement. They’re advocates and apologists for the Confederacy. They have a
specific narrative regarding American History in which the South was right.
They weave in several other themes regarding Agrarianism v. Industrialism, and
some have even embraced other unsustainable historical views (like the Celtic
Southern Thesis) regarding the formation of the United States and the cultural
differences between North and South.
Hence Wilkins, Doug Wilson and others are apologists for
Southern Slavery. Their Revisionist views have spread and influenced many
within the Christian Homeschool movement though few are aware of its roots and
what exactly these men are all about.
Normally these men are pretty coy about revealing the full
scope of their theology and agenda when they stand before the mainstream
Christian audience. You have to dig a little into their books and movement to
find out what they’re really about.
There are nuances to this movement. You have someone like
Gary DeMar and his extremely popular American Vision website which stands for
some of these ideas…the Nationalism (though they hilariously deny it, just
visit their website), Theonomy, Dominionism, and Postmillennialism, though they
would break ranks with Wilkins and others over the Agrarian narrative and some
of the theological issues.
American Vision is very influential in the Christian
Homeschool movement. In fact that’s an understatement.
Another would be Vision Forum, and Doug Phillips, whose
father Howard Phillips has run numerous times as a candidate for the
Constitution Party (formerly the US Taxpayers party). They advocate the
Confederate Agrarian theology but also reject Wilkins’ theology regarding
Covenant etc…
I’ve also written about this elsewhere. Email me if you’re
interested. This particular strain has conflated Abraham Kuyper’s ideas with
other thinkers such as RJ Rushdoony and several 19th century
Southern Theologians, like RL Dabney, J Thornwell, and BM Palmer.
Fresh Air:
The Influence Of Francis Schaeffer And Nancy
Pearcey
Bachmann's road to being born again started
when she was in high school. She then went to Winona State University in
Minnesota, where she met her husband, Marcus. In 1977, the Bachmanns watched a
series of movies that were produced by the evangelical Francis Schaeffer called
How Should We Then Live? Bachmann has cited the series on the campaign
trail, telling an audience in Iowa that it was a profound influence on her
life.
"[In the series, Schaeffer] takes the
audience through the entire history of Western culture through Roe v. Wade,"
says Lizza. "The beginning chapters of this movie are all about where
Christianity took wrong turns. For Schaeffer, it's the Enlightenment. It's the
Italian Renaissance. It's Darwinism. It's secular humanism. It's any point in
history where he believes man turns away from God and turns away from putting
God at the center of life."
Proto:
With Billy Graham,
Francis Schaeffer is definitely one of the great theological villains of the
post-War era. His immense influence has been nothing but destructive and now
dominates American Evangelicalism. Those who are familiar with them would
immediately reject my claims to being Christian since I repudiate his thinking.
At present,
Schaefferism is Orthodoxy.
The film series is
worth watching. It assumes the Sacralist narrative throughout. Schaeffer
assumes Christendom is a Biblical concept and ignores and glosses over the fact
that Roman Catholicism, monasticism, the Papacy and the entire Medieval Order
was man and especially the church turning away from God.
It’s very poor
history, rather silly and naïve interpretations and pure propaganda. I can’t
tell you how many different churches I’ve attended have used this film series
in Sunday School.
But in 1973, Schaeffer's focus began to shift
from Western art and culture to abortion and the dangers of genetic
engineering.
"Schaeffer decides that all of his
philosophy and all of the teachings that he had been teaching about the dangers
of moving away from a Christ-centered world — everything he warned about — is
now coming to fruition with the Roe decision," says Lizza.
"That the government is, in his terms, being taken over by an
authoritarian elite. ... I emphasize this to show that this is the movie that
Michelle Bachmann says changed her life. This is the movie that got her
radicalized on the abortion issue. To understand her, I think you have to
understand Schaeffer a little bit."
Proto:
It is such a
completely Americo-centric narrative and anyone outside the United States can
see this. This view, and so much of Theonomy and Dominionism springs from
American cultural frameworks and influences.
Not exactly
applying the Bible to all areas of life is it? Instead of taking every thought
captive…it’s the Bible being made captive to Americanist philosophical presuppositions.
Fresh Air:
Bachmann was also influenced by a student of
Schaeffer's named Nancy Pearcey, a well-known creationist and an advocate of
Dominionism, the view that Christians are biblically mandated to occupy all
secular institutions until Christ returns.
"Michele Bachmann has mentioned Pearcey's
book [Total Truth] as one that was important to her," he says.
"[The book] is in line with the Schaeffer-ite view of taking your
Christian faith and making sure that it permeates all parts of your life. The
key thing here is Christians should not just be go-to-church-on-Sunday
Christians. Their religion should permeate all aspects of life."
Proto:
Chuck Colson ripped off Francis
Schaeffer and entitled one of his books… ‘How “Now” Shall We Live?’
But as is often the case with
celebrity authors, Colson doesn’t really write most of his own books. He
employs professional writers and made use of Pearcy. Her most recent book I’ve
mentioned before…’Saving Leonardo,’ which is a Sacralist driven appeal to
defend Western Constantinianism.
I’ve argued that based off
Sacralism’s definition of Christianity, people who aren’t Biblically Christian
can be included under the label. Though the Bible knows nothing of this third
category of man…the Cultural Christian…this actually drives much of their
thought and has completely confused the Church and warped and deformed the
whole concept of the Kingdom of God.
And if Leonardo was a Christian in
some sense…then these folks struggle to deny that the Norwegian mass killer
Breivik wasn’t. He identified himself as a Christian in the very way these
folks define it when they wish to ‘claim’ someone for their cause. Obviously
they don’t want to ‘claim’ Breivik. But oddly they do wish to ‘claim’ the
Crusaders and many others whose actions differ little from Breiviks.
Of course this whole way of thinking
about history… marshalling people into your camp… is completely off-base and
belies a very oversimplified view (I cannot overstate that) of history. And
often it’s not just reductionist but plain dishonest.
Fresh Air:
The Influence Of John Eidsmoe
In 1979, Bachmann enrolled in the first law
school class at Oral Roberts University. Students at Oral Roberts were required
to sign a "code of honor" attesting to their Christian beliefs and
commitment.
"It's a law school that taught its
students biblical law," says Lizza. "[The school said] 'You need to
understand the Bible, you need to understand biblical law and that's what the
United States Constitution is built upon. And as a legal mind, you should
understand when American law is and is not consistent with biblical law.'"
While at Oral Roberts, Bachmann worked as a
research assistant for one of the professors, John Eidsmoe. She has brought up
his influence on the campaign trail, telling one audience in Iowa this year
that he "taught me so many aspects of our godly heritage."
Eidsmoe's 1987 book, Christianity and the
Constitution, tells Christians that "they need to get politically
active and they need to get involved with the legal system and they need to
make sure American law is more biblically based," says Lizza. "That's
what the book ends on, a clarion call for his students to get involved. ...
Eidsmoe is someone who believes American law should be based on the Bible. He
believes that the United States is a Christian nation, should remain a
Christian nation and that our politics and our law should be permeated by one's
Christian faith."
Proto:
Eidsmoe is not as well known to me, but I certainly know
the name. Look him up. It just continues to support my argument that this is
not Christianity, but a different religion garbed with Christian symbolism and
language. It’s amazing how this theology has permeated the entire Evangelical
scene. Dutch Reformed influences…at a Charismatic school like Oral Roberts?
Transformationalism is Orthodoxy.
In the end, this entire movement and way of thinking, this
misreading of the Bible on a massive scale is every bit as dangerous and
destructive as Roman Catholicism and any other false form of Christianity. To
put it simply these are wolves in sheep’s clothing. And like Romanism these
folks have a vibrant political agenda. It has already led to the deaths of
untold multitudes and if given more power…the blood will flow.
I’m certainly not trying to spur anyone to political
activism, for there is nowhere to turn and we don’t want to fall into the same
trap…thinking that the Kingdom is dependent on human politics instead of the
gospel.
But, it is imperative that we oppose these people and warn
others and I for one will happily cast a vote against them.
I will not fall for their Abortion trump card…if you don’t
vote for them, you’re voting for abortion. Well, even when they’re given power
they’ve done precious little to overturn abortion though their tactics often
make a mockery of our legal system and help to undermine it.
Theologically what they’re doing to men’s souls is worse
than abortion and I’d rather vote for my pet dog than see Bachmann or Rick
Perry (another of this crew about to enter the race)as Caesar.
Fresh Air:
Bachmann's Politics
The first time Bachmann got involved in
politics was in 1993, when she founded a publicly funded charter school in
Stillwater, Minn., with some other parents.
"They signed a charter saying they were
not allowed in any way to include a religious agenda at this school and they
very quickly violated that and built the school around a Christian sectarian
agenda to the point where parents ... became very alarmed." says Lizza.
"The school district stepped in and warned them that they were going to
lose their charter, and eventually Bachmann and another person who were spearheading
this were forced off the board and forced off the leadership of that
school."
Bachmann later ran for a seat on the
Stillwater school board. She lost but won her first race a year later, in the
Minnesota State Senate. In 2006, she was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives. Lizza says that her message is shaped largely by the audience
she's speaking with at any given time.
"This spring when she was doing some less
headline-making visits to Iowa and speaking at churches — sort of under-the-radar
wooing of religious leadership in Iowa — she knows how to speak that language
and she knows how to draw on her history at Oral Roberts and her born-again
experience," says Lizza. "She knows how to tell all of those stories
so that an evangelical audience will bond with her. ... She's transitioned.
She's transitioned into a candidate that talks much more about debt and
spending and all of the issues that are important to the Tea Party right
now."
Proto:
Tax dollars
building the kingdom… and an example of their often surreptitious methodology.
They worry about people affecting their children but then have no qualms about
employing similar tactics.
Again, a patent
example of…the gospel is not enough. We have to grab pagan kids and try to turn
them into Cultural Christians in the hope that somehow that will someday make
them into Biblical ones.
Interview Highlights
On Bachmann's government benefits
"For someone whose ideology is really
defined by a strong dislike for government, if you look at the way she's
supported herself over the years, it's mostly through the government. After law
school, she works at the IRS, she's there for four years, then in 1992 she
starts taking in foster children and does that from 1992-1998 and is paid by
the state to do that. She then works briefly for a local charter school and
then she starts running for office and becomes first an employee of the state
of Minnesota and then a congresswoman, an employee of the federal government.
... Her husband is a psychologist [who] has two counseling clinics that like
any other medical professional [clinic] takes lots of money from Medicare and
Medicaid — and then on top of that, has received generous farm subsidies for a
farm he owns in Wisconsin."
Proto:
I could go on quite awhile about this, but it is ironic
that many who cry the loudest against government have often benefitted the most
from it. In fact not only do you see this on a small-scale level with people
like Bachmann, but you see it on a macro-scale with the hordes of Defense
Contractors, Energy Companies, and multinational corporations whose dollars
shape and dominate American policy. Tax dollars are then spent to promote their
agendas and consequently line their pockets with profits. The
Military-Industrial Complex pushes the United States to develop the tools of
war, the death machines which they then build. These folks pocket the money and
then use a bit of it to make sure they vote people in, who keep it coming. It’s
a vicious and incredible circle...truly the War-machine, the American Wehrmact.
And so often you’ll find these industries give money to
Christian think-tanks and organizations who like blind fools employ a heretical
theology to propagandize the Church into supporting death, greed, covetous
riches and Empire... all the while calling it the Biblical Worldview.
It is judgment from God and a manifestation of Antichrist,
the prostituted church aiding and abetting (riding) the Beast, the deified
world empire.
Bachmann is but a pawn and not a very bright one at that…but
marketable to the deceived ecclesiastical community.
Fresh Air:
On Bachmann's selection of a Robert E. Lee
biography by J. Steven Wilkins as a book recommendation during her state Senate
campaign
"For a number of years, Michele
Bachmann's personal website had a list of books she recommended people read. It
was called 'Michelle's must-read list.' I was looking over the list and noticed
this biography of Lee by Wilkins. [I had] never heard of Wilkins and started
looking at who he was. And frankly couldn't believe that she was recommending
this book."
"Wilkins has combined a Christian
conservatism with neo-confederate views and developed what is known as the
theological war thesis. This is an idea that says the best way to understand
the Civil War is to see it in religious terms, and [that] the South was an
Orthodox Christian nation attacked by the godless North and that what was
really lost after the Civil War was one of the pinnacles of Christian society.
This insane view of the Civil War has been successfully injected into some of
the Christian home-schooling movement curriculums with the help of [Wilkins].
My guess is this is how she encountered the guy at some point. ... She
recommended this book on her website for a number of years. It is an
objectively pro-slavery book and one of the most startling things I learned
about her in this piece."
Proto:
With
Sacralism, suddenly chattel slavery becomes the gospel and a right decent
thing.
War
is peace, freedom is slavery….work sets you free right?
Everything
and most of all the gospel is turned on its head. Instead of giving your cloak,
you cling to it and spit on the other guy because he’s lazy and mismanages his
money. Instead of turning the other cheek, you strike back and kill and
destroy.
Christ
is transformed…He becomes Baal the god of storms and war.
There’s
no objective discussion regarding history. I would argue the North and South
were both wrong. Neither was promoting Christianity. I have no chip in the game
so I can talk about it honestly.
But
since I have ancestors who fought in the war (on both sides), I’m supposed to
get energized and passionately defend what my ancestors fought for. Rather than
cling to my heritage with pride I will instead rejoice that the Gospel has set
me free!
We
can’t divorce ourselves from our cultural contexts and the history that goes
along with that…but when we become Christians, that doesn’t make us into
Super-Americans, rather it means that there’s now an antithesis. It’s no longer
America v. The World, which is a pagan way of understanding life, a clash of
the Sacralisms.
Instead
we understand the world is filled with Christians and non-Christians. The
Kingdom which we belong to transcends the kingdoms of this world. By placing
our hearts and allegiances in the lap of these world-kingdoms…we become
traitors to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
There’s
more to the interview. This was just an excerpt put up on the NPR website. I
know, many will argue this justifies the claim that NPR is somehow liberal.
Well, I’m sorry but the mainstream media is negligent if it won’t report this.
The public ought to now what is shaping the thought of some of these
Conservative candidates. I will say, NPR does a pretty decent job of dealing
with Left-wing folks as well. They may not sound quite as alarmist when
covering them, depending on the level of extremes, but they do cover the story.
It is understandable that folks who are not Christian would find Dominionism to
be a little alarming.
Let’s
face it…they’re trying to take over the world and believe God has instructed
them to do so. I can see why folks might get a little nervous. Perhaps they’ve
read a little history, something Bachmann and her ilk have failed to do.