Are the Dominionist Blueprints, their models for
transforming the spheres...Christian? Biblical? Are they providing us with a Biblical Worldview?
While coherent with the philosophical systems they've
created, in many, maybe even most cases they're not in accord with Scripture,
and this is usually pretty clear by just comparing what they're suggesting with
the Pilgrim ethic of Scripture. Just reading through the Gospels or Epistles in
most cases quickly resolves any doubts. I'm afraid their systems are man-made
and many of them have reached a point in which it would seem they can no longer
see the forest through the trees.
These are the same folks that are often very careful to
think through presuppositions but then suggest models that are far more rooted
in tradition and cultural norms than anything else. Their philosophical models
for argument and discourse (mostly in Reformed circles) have not saved them
from the perils of their own cultural biases. They are being so careful to
analyze culture through Biblical spectacles, they don't realize they are
viewing the Bible itself through the cultural lens, distorting their analysis
and solutions.
None of us are exempt from this, but certainly a
non-Sacralist understanding of culture is rather liberating when it comes to
analysis. The person who has nothing invested in the culture, and has a take it
or leave it attitude toward his place of residence is more likely to think and
speak with candor, and leave the cultural lens aside. Again, this is all
subjective and opinions will vary. I have often found that those on the Left
are more honest about the cultural issues, they ask the right questions...they
just have bad answers. The Right does not even possess enough integrity or
courage to ask the real questions. Again my opinion, but the Left is a constant
mode of self-examination and critique...perhaps destructive in the end. But
Conservatives, the Right, rest upon a narrative concerning what's gone before.
Much of their ideology in fact rests on the particulars of that narrative. It's
not very conducive to honest probing or investigation, let alone reflection or
reassessment.
The Sacralist having frankly made an idol out of his
own nation or culture will not readily listen to external critiques, nor
consider the possibility that others have done some things better and that his
own nation or culture might be deficient in some or many areas. For them, this
is akin to blasphemy.
Rather than expounding all their energies on mastering
cultural systems, they ought to work on mastering Scripture, for in many cases
they are representing thought and models that are explicitly in contradiction
to the teaching of the New Testament.
The questions they ask and the false dilemmas created
by these questions exhibit the fact that they're treating Scripture as a data
mine or sourcebook rather than a Redemptive History revealing to us the
Theanthropic Christ. Examples of this kind of thinking in Reformed circles are
particularly noticeable in the Theonomic camp with their 'Theonomy v. Autonomy'
and 'By what standard?' discussions, which are not generated by Scripture, but
by the philosophical issues surrounding their understanding of Dominion and
Culture War.
Since the present desires to look to the past as a time
in which Christendom (the complex of these ideas applied to culture) was much
stronger, there is a definite tendency to romanticize the past and paint a rosy
picture of what it looked like. Honest historical assessment destroys the
narrative, the myth, and tarnishes the idol.
There is a strong reductionistic tendency in how they
frame cultural questions of the present as well. The agenda is supreme and they
don't want to get bogged down by complexities and nuances. We see this very
strongly at present in Conservative American politics. The candidates of choice
paint broad brush strokes and appeal more to general ideological principles and
supposedly morally driven emotions rather than deal with any specific technical
issues. So called 'gut instinct' rooted in the superior character of the
candidate seems to be enough. Many grounded their trust in George Bush with
such arguments and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result.
It's no surprise that the most popular political
leaders of the Christian Right Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were not 'hands-on'
type leaders. They put forward big ideas, picked someone to take care of it and
left it there. Leadership is about the 'gut instinct' and the big picture.
We see this same type of thinking and argument framing in
Kuyper's famous Stone Lectures. He came over to the United States in 1898 and
delivered a very famous series of lectures at Princeton on a variety of topics.
He was trying to stir the American students to think in terms of Dominion and
cultural conquest. These lectures have had a huge influence in Reformed circles
and now because of Francis Schaeffer, Chuck Colson and others the core of ideas
from these lectures have been disseminated on a large scale.
I read through the Stone Lectures back in the 1990's
and I remember being really disappointed. At that time I had not yet formulated
my present ideas and would have probably hesitantly and reluctantly identified
with the Dominionist mantras, but Kuyper's lectures were just (to my mind) a
lot of fluff. His history was bad, romanticized and naive. I remember on
several occasions throwing the book down in frustration and disgust. His views
of culture and history were not rooted in truth, but a narrative. The legacy
lives on among his spiritual descendants.
Just the other day I was listening to a Christ the
Center podcast with Vern Poythress. He's just written a book on 'Redeeming
Sociology' and in it he invokes the Kuyperian heritage and even points
specifically to the Stone Lectures as a key component in the formation of his
ideas.
Again, we can approach topics like Sociology as
Christians. We can wrestle with the complexities of demographics and social
forces in a fallen world and the Bible tells us how to think about these
things.
That's not what Poythress is doing. His purpose is to
re-work and re-think the issues surrounding the science of Sociology and to
specifically formulate it in Christian terms. Why? Because if we're going to
transform society then we have to provide models for every facet of culture as
well as the mechanisms by which it is measured. His primary critique of secular
sociology is that it fails to take God into account.
Of course. As stated above, the unbeliever (not being
born again) cannot grasp spiritual things. Formulating sociological models to
guide statistics and interpretation will do nothing to help lost people
understand social issues.
What they need is the Gospel.
Sociology is primarily dealing with human
relationships. As Christians our human relationships are affected and defined
by our relationship with God. Think of marriage for example. We would be wrong
to expect the unbeliever to grasp this or benefit from it. The true typology is
far beyond them. Their imitations will be only vague shadows of the true
understanding we are given.
What often happens is when Christians try to formulate
what they believe to be specifically Christian approaches to these types of
topics they usually let ideology drive the interpretation of the facts. The
conclusions are already held, so their approaches, their investigations are not
really very sincere. They are often nothing more than tools to help them in
self-affirmation.
For example in reaction to the recent Wall Street
protests I hear Dominionist Christians pull out the old 'envy' charge. They're
protesting because they're envious of the rich. This provides a theological
basis for condemning the motives and goals of the protest, denouncing it as
sinful desire. The Bible tells us this, they claim, and so....the Bible teaches
that economics should be governed by Free Markets.
But that's a gross oversimplification. If you look at
the signs and listen to the people...there are some who might be charged with
envy, but many believe they are opposing specific criminal activity. There are
many who believe the current system is a racket, a moral evil. They are
motivated by indignation and a desire for justice and reform. Many have no
problem with markets and entrepreneurial endeavour, they are protesting large
scale corruption and crime, a system in which the wealthiest have essentially
bought control.
The reality is the issues are complex as well as the
motivations of the protestors...and even the motivations of those in business
and positions of power. We have a mix of sin as well influences of Natural Law.
Even the lost have a sense of right and wrong and when egregious crimes are
committed, even the lost cry out.
The Bible is complex enough that you can argue many
positions...if you take a really simplistic and narrow view in its application
or if you go specifically looking for certain things. I'm afraid many
Dominionist Worldview tools are nothing more than a hermeneutical grid that
allows them to come up with the conclusions they want and interpret the world
through this same grid. It's system-driven and after awhile the system takes
over and provides the answers...and without realizing they radically stray from
the text.
In does not do justice to the flow of the text, nor the
facts on the ground.
Envy? This isn't a conclusion generated by an honest
investigation. It's a conclusions reached by clinging to this particular
socio-economic narrative. This has to be the solution, because otherwise.... we
might have to engage the protestors, we might have to address some of the
issues they raise. And that might cast doubts on our system.
They have taken some Biblical concepts concerning hard
work and reward, prudence and stewardship and combined them with non- or at the
very least extra-Biblical notions. Doing this actually changes the definitions
of the Biblical terms they use. Giving suddenly doesn't really mean
giving...it's qualified to death. Stewardship is a term they've loaded with so
much baggage that it has become a sort of umbrella term which allows them to
behave like privileged Americans rather than Biblically minded Christians.
The arguments of the lost are dismissed
because...they're not allowed to make any valid points. Unable to possess a
valid comprehensive worldview, their arguments are discredited. This system has
incredible defense mechanisms and most of the time...people are arguing against
what must be called an unassailable philosophical wall.
And suddenly, Adam Smith and Corporate Capitalism
become Biblical positions and the protestors...they're not only lost people,
they're insincere and sin motivated...evil.
This is but one of a myriad of examples where we find
Dominionist minded people embracing what are really philosophical and
sociological arguments, not Biblical ones, and allowing them to interpret
what's happening at present. The Bible has something to say to both the Wall
Street Bankers and the protestors. American Dominionists have in this case
allowed Adam Smith and John Locke to shape their thought rather than Scripture.
And yet the wicked part is....I hear every day people
like Al Mohler say, "Let's respond to this with a Biblical
Worldview," and then often provide an answer that has little or nothing to
do with either the Bible or the facts.
While I'm not suggesting we have to be morally relative
in order to be relevant, is our worldview a Biblical one when it leads to fail
to interact with temporal realities? Can we just ignore what's happening and
what people are saying because of a philosophical presuppositions? This seems
to me a road to detachment from reality, an Ivory Tower mentality. I see this
on a regular basis when I read Christian and Conservative commentators. They
speak of the poor and what motivates them, but it is painfully obvious they've
never talked to anyone who is poor and understand little or nothing of what the
poor deal with. In fact their ideology often leads them to invalidate many of
these categories.
While we're all subject to this as well, a more
objective approach might be more honest and helpful in dealing with data. Let's
see what's happening yesterday and today, and deal with it honestly, even if it
means we have to sometimes re-examine our thinking. We might even find that
sometimes ideas we held to be Biblical are based on cultural and historical
fallacies rather than the Text itself. Dealing objectively with these issues
will (if we're regenerate) drive us back to the Bible, not away from it as so
many fear. Of course for most of these Reformed folks since objectivity is
philosophically impossible it ought not to be even attempted.
I'm not suggesting for a moment the Bible message must
change in light of the facts. I'm saying we need to honest and keep going back
to the Bible. Sometimes we'll find that maybe we were reading something...that
wasn't really there.
What I'm also saying is...their drive for worldview
often leads to bad interpretations and ones that will automatically discount
data which doesn't match up with the presuppositions. For example if the
sociological data doesn't support their views of economics or government...then
the method of data collection is questioned rather than the ideology. We'll
have to come up with a more 'christian' method of data collection. We
need...yes, Christian Sociology which will give us a Biblical Worldview? Or
simply validate our already existing models?
Well we can't question the Bible. Agreed. But here's
the danger...Dominion Theology coupled with their theological method leads them
to believe their views of say...economics and government are indeed THE
Biblical view.
Perhaps you can see the blind spot? From my standpoint
they're in a vicious trap. I was there too for many years. It was a massive
undertaking, under guidance of the Spirit I believe, that led me to question,
question, question, and keep going back to the Bible. I knew a lot of history,
but now I felt driven to revisit history, economics, politics, and the rest....
For me, it meant disavowing the so-called Conservatism I was raised to believe
in. Did that make me a Liberal? No, it led me to reject the social and
political models given to us. I care not for their labels. I'm not interested.
In their case, Westernism or more specifically
Americanism has been substituted for Biblical Christianity and when Al Mohler
and Chuck Colson claim to provide Biblical Worldview commentary, what I'm often
hearing is Americanist commentary. Sometimes it might sound Biblical or overlap
with Biblical teaching, but it's a counterfeit and thus more dangerous than
blatantly false teaching. Even when we agree...it's often for different reasons
and with different emphasis.
The reality is the unbeliever has much to say and we
can learn much from them...with discernment. Sociology is actually quite
fascinating but it is of limited value. It has no part in the Kingdom. We don't
use it to build the Kingdom, but it is helpful to know something about why people
do what they do and how they interact with the world around, and certainly what
is shaping their view of us.
To expound massive amounts of energy trying to develop
Christian models of analysis is bound to be fruitless and largely a waste of
time. If you listen to the podcast, you'll see what I mean.
Transformationalism and Dominion drive this and these
are but a handful of examples of issues that really have almost no bearing on
the church that have been made into not only important issues but part of an
ever-narrowing orthodoxy.
The wall seems unassailable. For me it was the Text of
Scripture that led me early on to recognize their theology was in error. I
couldn't argue against it, but it just wasn't there.
In time I began to understand the system. I swam in the
Theonomist well for a long time but I did not drink. I was fascinated by it,
and at times almost persuaded...but I couldn't escape the Bible.
Eventually I started to see the problems. What looked
like an unassailable wall is really paper thin, or to put it another way...it's
massive but it's built on sand. Attack the foundation and the mortar (the
philosophical driving questions) quickly crumbles.