Thanks, Chip! That's very helpful to clarify the definitions and draw significant distinctions between various sectors of the Christian Right, and then to take it a step further by calling for different responses to different sectors.

by jhutson on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:27:00 AM EST

Chip -- with truly greatest respect for Sara Diamond's work -- and, of course, yours -- I see two points I'd question in this otherwise excellent analysis.

First, the idea of taking dominion over secular institutions in the U.S. hardly originates with Reconstructionists. Rather, that's the theocratic strand that goes back to Jonathan Edwards, the first really subtle theocratic thinker in the colonies. When I talk to Christian Right leaders, they always indicate that Edwards is still alive in their hearts.

Even more influential on the contemporary scene is Charles Grandisson Finney, who was a strong advocate of organized Christian control of government. As was Billy Sunday.

Nor should Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Reformed be overlooked just because some liberal Christians find in his work inspiration. Kuyper currently occupies first place in Chuck Colson's rankings.

There's a useful volume called A Free Church, A Holy Nation, by Christian conservative John Bolt that's stunning in laying out how thoroughly this 19th century thinker anticipated today's Christian Right.

Second: Your analysis assumes nationalism. But what about the major contingents of the Christian Right that are distinctly internationalist or even anti-nationalist? There's an awful lot of overlap with American imperialism, but it's not a perfect match. We on the left want to tag the entire right as nationalist and xenophobic; but the sophisticated elite right is often anything but.

Last point, for Talk 2 Action readers in general: Please don't ignore Christian conservatives. Theocrats, by Chip's taxonomy (which I think is immensely useful) are fascinating and dangerous. But defeat for the left ultimately comes through the much broader movement of Christian conservatives. A lot of these people are perfectly sane, courteous, and even sort of democratically minded. That doesn't mean they won't vote for theocractic policies. Take the fight public: Debate the mainstream of the far right. Don't cede them ground.
Author of THE FAMILY: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Harper, May 20)
by Jeff Sharlet on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:50:29 AM EST

... when you present a multi-part article, would it be possible to include a link to the earlier (and/or later, as appropriate) parts for those of us who may have come along a little late.  I can't find part 1 of this article.

- Patrick

by PatrickH on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:46:49 AM EST

Excellent post, Chip. It reinforces the choice I made to use the term 'dominionism' when describing the religious supremacists we are examining on Dark Christianity. It was difficult to find a term that wasn't misleading, and early on, I tossed out any term that could be confused with an actual current of Christianity (like Evangelical or Fundementalist) and all perjoratives. After reading various books, articles, and the like, I settled on "dominionist" because it reflects what the people who took over the GOP want to do: dominate this country and its government.

by Lorie Johnson on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:50:36 AM EST

Makes sense, and actually fits with how I've been using the term (in reference to groups practicing "dominion theology" in general).

I would say among hard dominionists there actually may be two clades, there, too:

a) "Spiritual Warfare" hard dominionists (for lack of a better definition)--more common in the pente/charismatic flavoured dominionist groups, has as a goal theocracy but as part of an effort to either essentially perform a national exorcism (to "drive off territorial spirits") or to "secure our blessing as God's chosen people".  Premillenial dispensationalism very common in this group.  Ted Haggard's New Life Church and its activities, and dominionism in general within the Assemblies of God, are textbook examples of this type of hard dominionism (which isn't quite textbook Christian Reconstructionism but has a nearly identical goal--just for slightly different theological reasons).

b) classical "Christian Reconstructionism" of the Rushdoony sort (which is generally postmillenarianist and seeks to establish God's kingdom on earth).

by dogemperor on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:40:29 AM EST

"Christian Theocrats -- We must oppose them and not give an inch in our defense of democracy against theocracy." So this doesn't go for nationalists and conservatives?

by Max Blumenthal on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 01:24:35 PM EST

Since so many of the top writers in the subject are involved, my hope is that the end result of this thread - which could go on for .....err a while might be a definition of Dominionism that is both expansive enough to cover all the objections and additions to Chip's definition and yet taught enough to be useful as a term.

I'm interested in that because there was originally a glossary of key terms prepared for this site but the issue of definitions was far, far too problematic - a morass in fact. And defining Dominionism may have been the stickiest morass and the slipperiest beast of all.  

So here's hoping.....

by Bruce Wilson on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 03:12:07 PM EST

We need to build a glossary or something that will make it easy for us to all get on the same page in our terminology.

Thanks for refining the vocabulary.

by Mainstream Baptist on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:01:08 AM EST

There is not nearly enough education & discussion of this in mainstream protestant or Catholic churches. Most Methodists could not imagine such a tilt to the right that a literalist view of the Bible would prevail in the denomination or the ordination of women  be ended. Yet, there are right wing UMC factions that would welcome these. The UMC has been a restless, anxious church for over sixty years, since the reunification of north & south, but has usually managed to gloss over broad & sometimes extreme differences. Still, many protestants look at the the Southern Baptist Convention with naivete, & say, "It can't happen here." But it can, & it might.

by HorseshoeCrab on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:22:20 AM EST

I'd like to know where you fit in the hardline Catholic bishops, especially those that refuse to permit Catholic politicians who do not toe the Vatican line on abortion and contraception and gay-lesbian issues to have communion, or even to speak at Catholic institutions.  

For many segments of society, women and gays among them, the policies that will oppress them exist no matter the category.  

by cyncooper on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 11:54:47 AM EST

. . . I still don't feel I understand the distinctions.  I understand that Christian Reconstructionists are a subset of the larger group of dominionists, and I sort of understand the difference you describe between and hard and soft dominionists, which I gather is relevant to the distinction between dominionists and Reconstructionists although it isn't labeled as such, but my mind still fogs.

     If Christian Reconstructionists are a subset of the larger group of dominionists, there must be certain specific characteristics (political beliefs, religious beliefs, personal traits, sexual proclivities -- something) which they possess but the rest of the dominionists do not.  It would help me if you could provide a simple list of those characteristics.  I understand that there is some uncertainty in this area, but surely you have an informed opinion of what the characteristics most worthy of inclusion on that list are.

     For example, when I was in college, one might describe the difference between "frat boy" and "college student" by explaining that (in addition to the definitional difference that fraternity members belonged to a fraternity and the rest of the student body did not) fraternity members were all male, were more politically conservative, and in most cases had wealthier parents and were more likely to participate in major college sports and sports-related (cheerleading, mascots) activity.  Some might posit other differences or challenge mine, but that's my list and I'm sticking to it.  I'd like to see your list on the Reconstructionists.

by Theovanna on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:51:13 AM EST

Part of the idea behind this site is to spark a conversation among writers who study the Christian Right, in the hopes of struggling through some concepts and definitions. At this point, I am trying to write a series that looks at specific elements.

Eventually, together, we will probably develop a glossary and some more precise definitions. These comments and questions helpt that process, but I am not sure I can produce anything better than essays at this point.

I still have to get back to the colonial period to make Jeff happy.

:-)

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

by Chip Berlet on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 06:06:11 PM EST

Wow, that was what I needed. I kept on seeing articles on dominionism, yet no one actually bothers to explain what the term is. Thus causeing me not knowing exactly what it is all about. Thanks for the clear explanation, I've learnt a lot here.

by stewiegriffin on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 01:41:18 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by Chip Berlet

by libe on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 06:24:42 PM EST

Thank you for writing this article and clearing up the definitions. I had no good idea about dominionism and theocracy so this was really interesting.
Desiree, Web Designer currently working on the hair loss cure project.
by Desiree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:27:48 AM EST