Thanks for outlining this history for us, Chip. The term dominionism has been in common currency in scholarly circles for more than a decade, even if it is new to some. It's unfortunate that some people's first exposure came in less useful and inaccurate uses.  But I want to underscore Chip's point: Readers should be very clear that just because some people have misapplied the word, or distorted its meaning, that the term itself is not invalid. I expect that we will use it often on this site.

The guidelines are very clear that we oppose labeling and demonization and we intend to use care not to confuse descriptive terms with epithets.

Reasonable people will differ about the applicability of terms, and there is plenty of room for discussion. Let's go ahead and have those discussions.

We need to have words and terms that are commonly understood among one another, and definitional discussions can help us get there.

However, I do not anticipate definitional conversations to go on indefinitely. At some point, these become reasonably settled matters, and we move on. Terms allow us to converse. Endless debates about terms obstruct conversation.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 08:07:50 PM EST

With some of the variants of dominionism, there  really isn't a good term for it.

The particular flavour of theocratic pushing that I'm most familiar with (which is within certain aspects of the pentecostal and charismatic communities) has been termed "dominion theology" or occasionally (in its postmillenarian variants) "Kingdom Now theology"; however, some blatantly theocratic denominations which claim not to support "dominion theology" practice much the same thing only calling it "spiritual warfare" or "restoring America's Godly Heritage".

With the particular group I grew up in (and have become familiar with dominionism through, having grown up being indoctrinated in it--this is a pente church in KY that has been active in the dominionist movement since at least the mid-70's, roughly as long as Ted Haggard's New Life Church, is a major "pit stop" on the AOG traveling preacher circuits, etc.) the whole theocratic bent is heavily tied into general beliefs in "spiritual warfare" and "deliverance ministry" to the point that the church is essentially theocratic at its core.  In pente/charismatic groups, most of the dominionist/theocratic movement isn't bound up in "Christian Reconstructionism" so much as, say, extensions of "Latter Rain", "spiritual warfare", and especially the "Brownsville Revival" Third Wave stuff that's been spreading in the AoG and Vineyard and independent charismatic churches for the past fifty years or so.

The origins of dominionist and theocratic thought in "independent Baptist" groups, the SBC, et al are rather different than in the pente and charismatic groups, and there IS a different "feel" to the groups (I've noticed the Baptist-affiliated groups tend to be friendlier towards postmillenial and Christian Reconstructionist stuff, whereas the "God Warrior dominionist" types in the pente and charismatic communities tend to push more of  the angles of either performing a national exorcism on the US or of "securing God's blessing" as they believe the US and Israel are both God's chosen countries--the US's "blessing" being evidenced by being the home of the pentecostal and charismatic movements).

One of the complicating things is that in a lot of these groups dominionists have no real term for themselves.  Pretty much everyone in the group I walked away from would just describe themselves as "born again Christians" or "God warriors" (now you know why that "Trading Spouses" ep gives me the shudders O_o), and only after talking with them or listening in on a few sermons would they start going in on "taking dominion over  your life and taking dominion over this country and away from the demons ruling it now".  (Yeah, they're heavy into the whole "everything outside the church is ungodly and literally demonised" thing.  So is New Life Church, frighteningly, and Ted Haggard has an even better press crew than the group I left)

I'm not sure what I'm writing is making sense to most folks, I can explain more at depth if people need.

by dogemperor on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 10:56:42 PM EST

Hi, dogemperor,
I found what you wrote very informative and useful. I would say that you can mix dominionism with a variety of forms of religious expression, theology, End Times eschatology, and triumphalism.

So you end up with a myriad of forms depending on the setting.

Some of us are trying to sort out the strains of postmillennialism and Christian Reconstructionism in the Christian Right, which is mostly populated by premillennialists.

It's complicated....


= = = The Public Eye: Website of Political Research Associates
Chip's Blog = = =

by Chip Berlet on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:20:48 PM EST

This term is fairly new to me, but based on the description above, how does dominionism translate to anti-democratic actions? It appears to me as if the movement motivates it's followers to participate in the democratic process.

Seeking to dominate the political process is something that all organized political groups and factions do. While I vehemently oppose the religious Republican right (gotta always use that "R" word... '06 is coming!), I fail to see how dominionism is the root of the problem.

by moses freeman on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:49:45 PM EST

For people's information, Bill Martin has just published an updated paperback version of "With God on Our Side."

by larry jones on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:12:54 PM EST

As I am again revisiting this great series, I realize the original thread is old but feel this might be the best place to address the issue, if anyone else notices, and the notes of last May suggests that they might.

In dealing with "What is dominionism?" as I gain increasing awareness of the issue I find the need to find words both more and less precise and feel a need for a three or more dimensional map to plot it all out.

There are the classic Reconstructionists of Gary North/Rushadoony group. I presume that there is close connections to DeVoss, Prince, and Blackwater, and I presume many steeplejacked churches though the outer edges of this seem quite fuzzy.

Then there are the more obvious outliers for which Rev Phelps is the posterboy, who though there might be few theological differences, is almost totally marginalized from power. I would include also many white power groups here but again fuzzy edges start to emerge, particularly with Sara Palin's crew.

And speaking of Palin , Muthee, et. al. and their seven mountains, faith warrior, program, they appear to be seperate from Gary North's group, though embarked on the same or very similar program. Also there is the Military issues that Mikey Wienstein has been fighting that I presume Rev Haggard was a part of, and other triumphalist groups that verge to the point of not being actually theocratic or at least not more antidemocratic than most Republicans.

Then there are the groups like Doug Coe who seem less bent on the open theocracy and more into "behind the scenes" power that seems at least as much a threat as the Gary North crowd.

And lets not forget folk like the Moonies that seem bent on subverting the subverters.

All of these groups are to some extent subversive and therefore secretive, and therefore hard to trace under the best of circumstances, but a clear map of what is known and what front groups each operates under, and perhaps even divisions among them that might be promoted to drive them apart, and mostly to shine a spotlight on the whole can of worms would be useful.

And of course a means of separating them from Christians of all stripes who actually believe that a pluralistic secular society is their own best protection is the ultimate goal.

by FreeDem on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:03:50 AM EST

Thanks for sharing this great article! That is very interesting Smile I love reading and I am always searching for informative information like this

by bennyandhika on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:22:38 PM EST