With regard to Dominionism in Australia, a review of the Church and State website reveals some of the trans-oceanic connections of ecclesiastical and political figures known to associate with American Evangelicals and groups like Focus on the Family. Commentator Bill Muehlenberg's name is familiar to many in American Reformed circles and other American figures like the false prophet Michael Brown are also making an appearance – and the line between ostensibly conservative Christianity and Right-wing politics gets pretty blurry. I wish I could say my eyebrows were raised at the connection to Nigel Farage but they weren't. The fact that in 2020 their conference hosted a former Rhodesian special forces officer turned mercenary did.
And that's another interesting aspect to Dominionism. I've
written about the longtime fears of the liberal churches being the basis of an
ecumenical movement and compromise with Rome. That was certainly the fear when
I was growing up, a near constant refrain heard from the pulpit – but one that
began to rapidly disappear in the 1990's. Instead we find that Dominionism is
the foundation stone of a new Twenty-first century ecumenism. Right-wing politics
being the true religion of these folks and the basis of their communion, the
new Dominionist Ecumenism happily incorporates Confessionalists, Evangelicals,
Catholics, and even growing numbers of Theological Liberals – which would
include groups like Hillsong. Indeed the larger Evangelical movement (as
exemplified by Hillsong and other para-church groups and educational
institutions) is itself blurring with theological liberalism as it embraces
textual criticism, feminism, the academy, evolutionary science, secular
philosophy, psychology, and the like. This has in some cases watered down the
Right-wing edge but the basic motivation toward political action and Christian
power is retained.
Morrison demonstrated himself to be fully on board with the
Trumpist-Christian Right's agenda in 2018 by floating the possibility of
Australia moving its Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – an important
milestone for the adherents of Dispensational eschatology, and yet a move
guaranteed to provoke more anger in the Arab world. In terms of diplomacy it's
destructive, and given the erroneous nature of the theology, the warmongering
move and the support for Zionist Israel takes on a sinister militaristic air.
Earning praise from the American Evangelical and Trump
administration apparatchik Mike Pompeo, Morrison (unlike his predecessors) has
gone 'all in' on the Anti-China campaign, and has openly joined with the US by
means of the AUKUS pact. Breaking an agreement with France, Morrison's
administration has made moves to purchase American nuclear submarines, and he has
(to the delight of the American Right) actively promoted the baseless Wuhan Lab
theory regarding the origins of Covid-19. And now he has also joined the
American-led campaign to discredit the 2022 Beijing Winter Games by means of a
diplomatic boycott.
We all remember the US boycott of Moscow in 1980 and the
retaliatory Soviet withdrawal from the Los Angeles games in 1984. Both games
suffered as a result and nothing was gained. This way the games continue but a
message is sent, and the offense given. While China could not deny the insult
of the US boycott, their response to Australia was both comical and demeaning.
Morrison appeared as the American toady that he is.
But make no mistake, China is in fact very angry that
Australia has fully signed on with the Americans. It sends a threatening signal
that war preparations are under way. The recent announcement of a new Northrop-Grumman
lab in Australia along with the submarine deal also demonstrates that Australia
is being integrated into US war plans.
And this is where the questions of secrecy come into play
once more. There's another reason for secrecy and that's a military one.
Governments planning for war and engaged in a military buildup are going to
shroud their actions in secrecy. Fundamental questions about democracy also come
into play and it is at this point that those on both the Left and Right are
forced to struggle with basic issues and some of democracy's internal
contradictions. It's one thing for democracy to function at a local level but
in a trans-national capitalist system with nation states engaged in
geopolitical machinations, transparency will hamper the ability of the state to
function. And yet secrecy necessarily subverts democracy as an ignorant public
cannot make informed decisions and it undermines the ability of the public to
give consent or petition the government. This is not to defend Morrison and the
schemes he's involved in or to argue for the inherent good of democracy but
rather it is to expose the shortcomings of those journalists and politicians critical
of an administration involved in such maneuvers. One could argue (though we
shouldn't accept the argument) that for the good of the nation a secret
military buildup is necessary. Those on the Centre-Left are unlikely to reject
such arguments. Those on the Far Left have more basic questions they need to
ask and at that point in terms of journalism, their criticism of a Left-wing
government (the Labor Party in Australia) should be just as vigorous because
even among Labor, their assumptions regarding the state and secrecy are more or
less the same.
A dubious aspect to Morrison's secrecy is most likely rooted
in the tactics introduced by Pat Robertson back in the 1980's. He urged his
dominionist followers to not wear their hearts on their sleeve but to maintain
a low profile in terms of their overall goals and objectives. Ethically and
spiritually dubious but politically expedient, politicians like Morrison will
also rely on more secular minded Right-wing voters as well as some centrists.
An open declaration of his ideology, goals, and aspirations would most likely
put off some of these elements. The political scene in America has shifted to
the point of radical polarization and so at this point even those who are
dubious about the overt religiosity of some candidates will still vote for them
out of hatred and fear of the Left. This also helps to explain the role of FOX
and other outlets which are desperate to literally demonize the Left, labeling
them as communists, and evil. They're not communists but many are evil or at
the very least stand for evil things – just like the political actors on the
Right. Again though, from a Christian standpoint we shouldn't be overly worried
about lost people, pursuing lost things and building their fallen
doomed-to-fail Babels. The real threat comes from those who are in essence no
different and yet come in Christian packaging and thus are wolves – and yet
presenting themselves as sheep.
The article raises questions concerning Morrison's failure to
hold fellow MP's to account that are making reckless statements regarding
Covid-19. Is this because they're fellow believers?
That could be a partial explanation but more likely it's
simply this – Morrison represents the capitalist class and they don't want lock
downs. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson put the position (as we might expect) in
very blunt and crude terms: “No more f---ing
lockdowns — let the bodies pile high in their thousands!” He speaks for his
masters.
The markets and investors don't care if people die. Their
answer is simple – get back to work. And so if some politicians cast doubt on
the whole Covid narrative, or medical officials vacillate and back track – that
only furthers the cause. Sow discord, foment confusion. That's the goal. And
yet the Right has been sidetracked into ridiculous paradigms in which they
argue that's all a conspiracy – the Left wants everyone to stay home and for
the economy to collapse. It's ridiculous. The Left's policies in the end are
effectively no different. They too represent the capitalist class and its
ethics. The difference is this – they're actually trying (to some degree) to mitigate
the disease and to prevent death. For they (it would seem) have the sense to
realise (unlike their colleagues on the Right) that mass death and the breaking
of the health care infrastructure is in the end – bad for the economy.
But for the Right, the answer is simple, the deaths are worth
it. The economy is paramount and a thriving economy is a greater good. This
kind of consequentialist thinking is incompatible with Christian ethics and
obviously cannot be reckoned a pro-life position but the past several decades
have made it fairly clear that the Right's pro-life agenda is selective at best
and is meant to emotionally target a large swathe of their base. It doesn't
actually rest on any kind of solid or principled ideological or ethical
grounds. These people are not pro-life. Being anti-abortion may be a conviction
for some but for others the political rhetoric serves another purpose – to
galvanise support and votes from the Catholic and Evangelical blocs. This also
plays into some of the other issues and debates surrounding assisted suicide
and the like. As if years of warmongering weren't enough proof of their
anti-life and pro-violence posture, Covid has been something of a blessing
because it has fully exposed them for what they really are and opened many eyes
to the rank hypocrisy and insincerity of the Right and its pro-life claims.
The Climate Change debate is also driven by financial
interests. The scientific consensus is not airtight but the Right wing
narrative of blanket denial and obfuscation is also misleading and dangerous.
Once again profits are the real motivation.
As far as the sodomy issue – no believer can support it and
yet the great irony is this – the Right continues to promote economic policies
and an attitude toward wealth and consumerism that ultimately promotes feminism
and other forms of individualism that undermine the family. It results in hedonism,
materialism, decadence and finally cultural sodomy. A Biblical argument can be
made for this as well as an appeal to historical precedents. Sodomy (in all its
permutations) is deplorable, a form of judgment and abomination. And yet
Right-wing dominionists are exposed as blind guides leading the blind. They
continue to promote the socio-economic system that destroys ethics, feeds decadence
and in the end produces the very sodomy and cultural collapse they oppose.
To the 'Crikey' journalist, Morrison is a chauvinist and
guilty of sexism. But when viewed from the standpoint of Scripture, the
Evangelical movement with which Morrison is associated is much closer to the
feminist side of the spectrum than anything traditional or Christian. Career
women are now the norm in Evangelicalism and women pastors are in the process
of becoming normalised. The domestic-oriented, shamefaced, and submissive
helpmeet picture of New Testament womanhood is rejected by Evangelicals with
great vitriol – with a hostility almost as fervent as the secularists. The
reporter (David Hardaker) in this case doesn't understand and views anything
less than modern feminism (which actually places women in the preferential
position) as being misogynistic.
Overall the reporting was weak and redundant, in some cases
trying to make mountains out of molehills. A lot of the focus is on what might
be called symptoms as opposed to fundamental problems. The journalist
absolutises democracy and yet (it would seem) would be quite upset if
Morrison's views were in fact representative of the majority. Hardaker would
probably acknowledge that restraints on democracy are necessary – laws, the
courts to enforce, or even executive or royal power, depending on one's
particular polity. Once again democracy is in reality rather thorny and not the
straightforward 'will of the people' that is sometimes presented.
That said, another real issue at stake is whether or not
Morrison's ideology is compatible with the Enlightenment liberal values that
undergird Australia's constitutional system. I would argue the answer is
negative and he should therefore be disqualified, though I will admit there's
no real mechanism in place to do this. Dominionism is ultimately anti-democratic
and anti-liberal – but if it's voted in, then what? There is the danger that a
democratic system can self-destruct – democratically no less. We're also seeing
it in the United States.
Christians cannot embrace the values and assumptions of the
Enlightenment with regard to social contract, nor the premise that what is
democratically decided becomes 'right' or moral and once the decision is made,
patriotic duty demands that one support the state and its policies. Honesty precludes Christian participation in
such systems and as mentioned there are a wide-ranging set of doctrines that
also demand Christians eschew such aspirations along with other Biblical imperatives
that prohibit office holding and the execution of governmental powers.
What Dominionists have done is to revise history and to
create a hybrid system that intertwines Enlightenment ideology with Christian
terms, concepts, and narratives. The result is both a historical lie and a
theological heresy. Morrison has no leg to stand on in terms of either. It would
be one thing to argue Integralist-fashion for the restoration of sacralist
Christendom, an error but one with some historical basis. And yet such an
argument cannot be made on the basis of Enlightenment categories such as
democracy and the social contract. Rulers in that case don't exercise authority
on the basis of the will of the people but 'by the grace of God' – a claim
theologically and liturgically ratified by the Church.
Instead modern Dominionism claims the mantle of old
Christendom even while it creates an alloy with Enlightenment concepts and
categories – the very movement that broke Christendom and dismantled it. The
truth is this, Morrison is part of a movement rooted in historical revisionism
and heresy.
This needs to be exposed and (it is hoped) his support will
dwindle among Biblically-minded Christians. Journalists can play a role in this
but they've not taken the time to understand the Christian issues they're
writing about, and even fewer are able to peel back the layers and understand
the foundations of the ideology and where the problems actually lie. Such
reporting therefore may have some value but it will always be limited and as
seen in Hardaker's series – it contains problems, misinformation, bad
interpretation, and also evident bias from the outset. And yet as I'm sure that
Hardaker and the editors of the publication hoped, it's effective in terms of
its own target audience.
There's a lot more to the Morrison story. Hopefully someone
will eventually tell it and let us hope his failures, deceptions, and moral
shortcomings will result in a good – Christians breaking with the larger
dominionist project. We already know they result in evil – the way of truth
being evil spoken of. And not for the gospel but for their ill-conceived
schemes, dark deeds, deceptions, and the harm they've caused.
Instead of advancing and spreading the Kingdom, they have in
fact tarnished its reputation, diminished its ability, and have instead
generated a series of counterfeit gospels, bogus forms of Christianity, and
great evils.
The Australian Church is in danger. Some may think they've
scored a great victory in Morrison's election. They are mistaken.