Was Rushdoony a "Dominionist?"
At first hearing, my question appears oxymoronic. Didn't Rushdoony draft the modern blueprint for "dominionism?" Isn't his name synonymous with the idea of a Christian "take over?"
That Rushdoony espoused Christian domination is a common mistake made by those unfamiliar with his concept of Christian Reconstruction--a mistake made especially by his critics. In particular, the denunciation by secular activists watchdogs has consistently misrepresented Rushdoony's dominionism as a religious mirror of their own statist drives. In other words, they fully intend to utilize the present federal bureaucracy--and even expand it more--in order to realize their own ideal society. The mistake they make is in assuming Rushdoony's dominionism is simply a religious take over of that very same bureaucracy. In modern parlance, dominionism is domination, and that is the weapon of fallen man.
The secularist seeks to dominate other men, although they would never admit to such. Their espousal of "freedom" is not a freedom for all, but rather a freedom for all from the tyranny of religious conviction. The poster children for the freedom they seek is the sodomite and the aborting woman, i.e., they're seeking freedom for anal sex and the killing of an unborn child.
At present, they espouse an alleged religious freedom as well; one that protects liberal mainline denominations from the intimidation of conservative fundamentalism. However, their concern is by no means doctrinal. Rather--again--they're seeking to protect mainline denominations in their pursuit of imbibing the homosexual culture into it's worldview, clergy, and laity.
In order to protect a sodomite social order, they have to dominate the conservative Christian--the sole opponent to their utopia. This is the essence of power politics. I will grant, however, that a great deal of the Religious Right are engaging in the very same tactics. It's simply not my intent to defend that Barabbas bunch. I am only demonstrating that domination is a necessary tool for any humanistic utopia. Even if every conservative Christian never participated in politics again, these same humanists would eventually move against the fundamentalist camp--opposing ideas cannot be tolerated lest they spurn revolution. After all, since revolution is a tool of the humanist, how could a massive population of conservative Christians not also be dedicated to a radical alteration of society? It's called the doctrine of preemption, i.e., get them before they get you.
Rushdoony's dominionism does not involve domination. In fact, it's actually closer to the idea of development. It entails faithfulness with what God has freely given in order to produce God's intention. The sinner does not understand this; nor does he respect it. Such self-sacrifice for a higher purpose is foreign to one who deems man himself as divine. Therefore, to the sinner, power and domination are the tools of dominion, and for them, incarnation of the divine man is always realized in the state.
I conclude with Rushdoony's own concept of dominion:
That Rushdoony espoused Christian domination is a common mistake made by those unfamiliar with his concept of Christian Reconstruction--a mistake made especially by his critics. In particular, the denunciation by secular activists watchdogs has consistently misrepresented Rushdoony's dominionism as a religious mirror of their own statist drives. In other words, they fully intend to utilize the present federal bureaucracy--and even expand it more--in order to realize their own ideal society. The mistake they make is in assuming Rushdoony's dominionism is simply a religious take over of that very same bureaucracy. In modern parlance, dominionism is domination, and that is the weapon of fallen man.
The secularist seeks to dominate other men, although they would never admit to such. Their espousal of "freedom" is not a freedom for all, but rather a freedom for all from the tyranny of religious conviction. The poster children for the freedom they seek is the sodomite and the aborting woman, i.e., they're seeking freedom for anal sex and the killing of an unborn child.
At present, they espouse an alleged religious freedom as well; one that protects liberal mainline denominations from the intimidation of conservative fundamentalism. However, their concern is by no means doctrinal. Rather--again--they're seeking to protect mainline denominations in their pursuit of imbibing the homosexual culture into it's worldview, clergy, and laity.
In order to protect a sodomite social order, they have to dominate the conservative Christian--the sole opponent to their utopia. This is the essence of power politics. I will grant, however, that a great deal of the Religious Right are engaging in the very same tactics. It's simply not my intent to defend that Barabbas bunch. I am only demonstrating that domination is a necessary tool for any humanistic utopia. Even if every conservative Christian never participated in politics again, these same humanists would eventually move against the fundamentalist camp--opposing ideas cannot be tolerated lest they spurn revolution. After all, since revolution is a tool of the humanist, how could a massive population of conservative Christians not also be dedicated to a radical alteration of society? It's called the doctrine of preemption, i.e., get them before they get you.
Rushdoony's dominionism does not involve domination. In fact, it's actually closer to the idea of development. It entails faithfulness with what God has freely given in order to produce God's intention. The sinner does not understand this; nor does he respect it. Such self-sacrifice for a higher purpose is foreign to one who deems man himself as divine. Therefore, to the sinner, power and domination are the tools of dominion, and for them, incarnation of the divine man is always realized in the state.
I conclude with Rushdoony's own concept of dominion:
It is significant that godly man in Genesis 1:26-28 is called to exercise dominion (not domination) over the earth, not other men, to develop all things in terms of God's law-word and to make this earth into God's realm and domain. Fallen man does not seek dominion, which begins with his salvation and his ability to rule himself, but, rather, the goal of fallen man is domination, to control other people.1. R. J. Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), 412.
In Ephesians 5:21-33, a husband's godly dominion over his wife is compared to Christ's ministry and the sacrifice of His life to redeem the Church. It is declared to be love: "He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church." This is not domination, yet all too many husbands who call themselves Christian still insist on replacing dominion with domination.
It should not surprise us, therefore, that Christians cannot cope with an evil world given to terror and to domination. Neither should it surprise us that too often the most successful clergyman are those who exercise, not dominion but domination, because this is what the world respects.[1]
