Dominionism, New Apostolic Reformation, End Timers?

[jackdale]

Even though I am not an American I have a growing concern about the whole religious right movement. In particular

Dominionism

In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond and journalist Frederick Clarkson defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right. In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.

According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right" (p. 138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right".Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."
In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

Essayist Katherine Yurica began using the term dominionism in her articles in 2004, beginning with "The Despoiling of America", (February 11, 2004),Authors following Yurica in this usage include journalist Chris Hedges Marion Maddox, James Rudin, Michelle Goldberg, Kevin Phillips, Sam Harris, Ryan Lizza, and the group TheocracyWatch. This group of authors has applied the term to a broader spectrum of people than have Diamond, Clarkson, and Berlet.

Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Apostolic Reformation has Pentecostal and Charismatic origins, with those traditions' interpretations of the nature of the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit within each believer. Unlike some parts of Protestant Christianity, these include the direct revelation of Christ to each believer, prophecy, and the performance of miracles such as healing.
Although the movement regards the church as the true body of saved believers, as most Evangelical Protestants do, it differs from the broader Protestant tradition in its view on the nature of church leadership, specifically the doctrine of Five-Fold Ministry, which is based upon a non-traditional interpretation of Ephesians 4:11.
Forrest Wilder describes the New Apostolic Reformation as having "taken Pentecostalism, with its emphasis on ecstatic worship and the supernatural, and given it an adrenaline shot."[1] Wilder adds that beliefs of people associated with the movement "can tend toward the bizarre" and that it has "taken biblical literalism to an extreme."
The organization has become increasingly involved in political activism, with many of its leaders supporting the 2012 presidential candidacy of Rick Perry.

New Apostolic Reformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These folks tend to be End-Timers

Again, do not doubt; because Bible prophecy is being fulfilled, and we are indeed living in the period known as the Endtime -- or End Times -- as described in the pages of the Holy Bible! The end of the world as we know it may be closer than you think! In fact, the Beast -- who some people refer to as the Antichrist -- may be alive today; and so may the False Prophet who will cause the world to worship the Beast! The Battle of Armageddon is drawing closer in the Middle East, as attempts to bridge the gap between the Jews and the Palestinians fail again and again. According to Bible prophecy, it is only a matter of time before the Beast implements his Mark of the Beast / 666 credit system with help from the False Prophet, and many people will then experience Great Tribulation before the Rapture event occurs! Babylon the Great -- that great city which reigns over the kings and rulers of the Earth -- will likewise burn! Even now the Jews wait to rebuild their third and final temple so that they can resume their cherished Daily Sacrifice. The Holy Covenant -- which is possibly a temporary peace agreement between the Jews and the Palestinians -- may make these events possible.

Endtime Prophecy - Bible studies on Apocalypse (Revelation), End of the World, Antichrist, Nostradamus, Armageddon and other prophecies.

In which case most of our problems will be solved by the Second Coming. Why bother about the environment, health care, social security, education, etc.?

Both Perry and Bachmann seem to have ties to these movements.
Evangelicals have a Perry/Bachmann Problem | Friends of Justice

[PorFin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Even though I am not an American I have a growing concern about the whole religious right movement.

(redacted)

Both Perry and Bachmann seem to have ties to these movements.

Jack,

Perhaps I'm naive, but I am not worried about these folks. Democracy is a great system to keep the extremists of any particular "ism" from exerting undue influence. My feeling is that the checks and balances exist -- and if I ever find myself at odds with the vast majority of my fellow countrymen, then I'll either need to begin a princpled fight or find a new home.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by PorFin

Jack,

Perhaps I'm naive, but I am not worried about these folks. Democracy is a great system to keep the extremists of any particular "ism" from exerting undue influence. My feeling is that the checks and balances exist -- and if I ever find myself at odds with the vast majority of my fellow countrymen, then I'll either need to begin a princpled fight or find a new home.

That is somewhat reassuring.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PorFin

Jack,

Perhaps I'm naive, but I am not worried about these folks. Democracy is a great system to keep the extremists of any particular "ism" from exerting undue influence. My feeling is that the checks and balances exist -- and if I ever find myself at odds with the vast majority of my fellow countrymen, then I'll either need to begin a princpled fight or find a new home.

I totally agree that the vast majority of Americans are and always have been sensible people but the religious right nutcases seem to have developed a grip on the GOP far in excess of their numbers. From outside looking in it appears that any serious contender for the GOP has to kowtow to these loonies.

That is some scary s#it

[PorFin]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

I totally agree that the vast majority of Americans are and always have been sensible people but the religious right nutcases seem to have developed a grip on the GOP far in excess of their numbers. From outside looking in it appears that any serious contender for the GOP has to kowtow to these loonies.

That is some scary s#it

I see your point, but there's a wide gulf of difference between: A) political pandering to get votes and; B) actual dedication to an extreme ideology to the point that it becomes dangerous.

We've grown quite accustomed to condition A above.

My bet is that if condition B were to become apparent, either the candidate(s) would be unelectable (if running) or once in office effectively blocked from implementing an extreme agenda by the countevaling forces/branches of government.

[Sailormon6]

You know, the ones who scare the hell out of me are the freaks on the left. It's funny how it works out that way, isn't it? Do you have some statistics that show there are more scary people on the right than scary people on the left, Jack?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

You know, the ones who scare the hell out of me are the freaks on the left. It's funny how it works out that way, isn't it?

In your case, not really.

Do you have some statistics that show there are more scary people on the right than scary people on the left, Jack?

I am not sure the US census collected that type of data.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

You know, the ones who scare the hell out of me are the freaks on the left. It's funny how it works out that way, isn't it? Do you have some statistics that show there are more scary people on the right than scary people on the left, Jack?

There is one big difference - left of center voters don't generally give any credence to the far left nutcases (commies, radical socialists etc.) but the right of center voters at least appear to regard the religious right nutcases as politically legitimate and seem to be swayed by them. At a minimum, they tailor their policy statements to appease them.

[PorFin]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

There is one big difference - left of center voters don't generally give any credence to the far left nutcases (commies, radical socialists etc.) but the right of center voters at least appear to regard the religious right nutcases as politically legitimate and seem to be swayed by them. At a minimum, they tailor their policy statements to appease them.

SJB,

Remember, I've got no preference on left/right here -- just making observations. I also don't want to put words in your mouth so if something's amiss here feel free to correct it.

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but it seems to me that you're saying that one side respects that voters are entitled to their opinions (whatever they may be) while the other side does not after discounting them as "nutcases."

In my view, political legitimacy is not defined by whether or not folks agree with you -- that would be political viability. In a democratic system, political legitimacy is founded on a willingness to allow the majority to exert its will whether that be by direct ballot or by proxy (i.e., elected representatives.)

While I may not agree with everything a person believes, that doesn't mean that their views are any less valuable than my own -- just different. I'd never seriously consider living without modern conveniences, but the Amish do it everyday. It works for them, and I can live with that. Now, if they attempt to impose their views on me... then there's a problem.

The recent fights about school cirricula are good examples of this struggle. Both left and right can be accused of attempting to influence what kids learn to support their own world views.

The bottom line is that common sense and cooler heads usually prevail.

Call me a glass half-full kind of guy .

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PorFin

Call me a glass half-full kind of guy .

OK. PorFin, you're a glass half-full kind of guy. Personally, as an engineer, I see the glass as being twice as big as it needs to be

On the religious right, the issue is definitely the way they concentrate their influence and spending on political means of persuasion. For example, the Christian lobby here has been using undue political influence to try removing ethics classes as an alternative to scripture classes in public schools.

The ethics classes don't replace scripture as they are (by law) just held at the same time to give parents an alternative to the scripture classes. In other words, if children are leaving scripture due to the ethics classes being available, it is because of an exercise in choice that was not available before (if you didn't attend scripture, you had to stay in class but do nothing as teachers could not give non-scripture attendees any advantage, again by law).

The public support the ethics classes (as per polling & voting results), their availability simply gives an alternative to (rather than force people away from) scripture, and to cancel them whilst keeping scripture would patently be enforcing a Christian agenda on schools. Doesn't stop the Christian lobby & single Christian-centric senator from trying to withhold support for everything the conservative state government tries to do unless they cave in on this measure. How dare the government give us a choice in the matter?

Sadly, due to lack of public political involvement, most of this gets ignored unless/until it is raised during an election lead-up. Really brings into perspective the origins of the word "idiot"