A Christianist Manifesto’s Call to Arms

I have written a number of times about Christian dominionism and, more frighteningly, its appeals and connections to some of the darlings of the GOP presidential candidate slate, namely Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. From following the "Christian Right" - which is any thing but right - for over a decade, I continue to believe that too few people appreciate just how successful the dominionists have been in infiltrating more mainstream evangelical groups, some of which have no idea that they are being moved like puppets by the far more extreme dominionists. The far right continues to be working in over drive to minimize the level of influence now enjoyed within the GOP by those who a decade ago would have been viewed as radioactive and certifiably insane. These extremists DO control the GOP to a large extent and, therefore, it is crucial that the larger public understand the clear and present danger the Christianists and dominionist pose to the country. A piece in The New Yorker looks at the true subversive aspect of the Christian dominionists who while wrapping themselves in a flag and clutching a Bible would happily overthrow the U.S. government and replace it with a frightening theocracy. Here are some highlights:of

appreciate Ross Douthat’s partial praise of my recent piece about Michele Bachmann, especially since I led him into debate with a tweet. But when Douthat writes about Francis Schaeffer, an important influence on the Presidential candidate, he misses the mark.

Schaeffer didn’t like the formal melding of church and state, but his exhortation to readers was that Christianity, properly applied, “brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.” Schaeffer’s big point was that, for too long, American Christians had divided the world into spiritual and material spheres, and that they had applied Christianity only to the former.

He saw an apocalyptic, zero-sum struggle between the Christian world view and what he called the “humanist” world view. In “A Christian Manifesto,” Schaeffer writes: “What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but total differences in regard to society, government, and law. There is no way to mix these two total world views. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized.”

And our view of final reality—whether it is material-energy, shaped by impersonal chance, or the living God and Creator—will determine our position on every crucial issue we face today. It will determine our views on the value and dignity of people, the base for the kind of life the individual and society lives, the direction law will take, and whether there will be freedom or some form of authoritarian dominance.”

And later in “A Christian Manifesto,” he writes: “It is not too strong to say that we are at war, and there are no neutral parties in the struggle. One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.”

If Christians were to lose this “war” over world views, the consequences would be catastrophic. Schaeffer wrote that the humanist world view—leave aside the matter that almost no one self-identifies as a “humanist”— was on the cusp of defeating Christianity in America.

Either Christians defeated the humanists and reinstated “God’s written Law” as the “base” in America or we would lose our democracy. He genuinely believed that freedom could not flourish unless biblical law formed the foundation of society.

But Schaeffer believed Christians needed to follow a path of escalating actions, and he left no doubt where those actions led if they were not successful. Indeed, much of “A Christian Manifesto” is concerned with the question of “what to do about it if the window does shut?”

Schaeffer agrees that we have reached the point by which Rutherford argued revolution was justified, he later makes it clear: “It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s Law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. I would emphasize at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong, he was right; it was not only right in the seventeenth century in Scotland where he was right; it was not only in 1776 where he was right: he is right in our century.”

to read “A Christian Manifesto” as only a call for non-violent civil disobedience is to willfully ignore a central argument of the book: that at a certain point—the “bottom line”—the government loses its moral authority, and its overthrow by any means is justified.

That's right. One of the founders and advocates for dominionism advocate for revolution against the government if Christianists principles were driven from controlling civil government. In most circles, this is called treason. Yet the Christianist continue to be treated with kid gloves and are allowed to say and advocate for things that would land the rest of us in prison. It's far past time that this special treatment and privilege end.