Christians in the Marketplace

This post exhibits the unrelenting and ignorant posture the main stream media takes regarding anyone who dares to embrace Christian Theism. Their ignorance is both malicious and intentional.

Michele Bachmann and Dominionism Paranoia

Once again the popular media demonstrate how woefully poor is their understanding of American evangelicals.
By Douglas Groothuis, August 25, 2011

Attacks on presidential hopefuls will increase in volume, frequency, and audacity as the primary season draws near. Time is short, the stakes are high, and the pundits will pounce on their prey. One recent barrage against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann not only impugns her integrity as a political leader, but also questions something fundamentally and luminously American: the right of religious individuals to participate according to their deepest principles at every level of political life.

There is a buzz in the political beehive about the dark dangers of Bachmann's association with "dominionism"—a fundamentalist movement heaven-bent on imposing a hellish theocracy on America. In the August 15 issue of The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza asserts that Bachmann has been ideologically shaped by "exotic" thinkers of the dominionist stripe who pose a threat to our secular political institutions. The piece—and much of the subsequent media reaction—is a calamity of confusion, conflation, and obfuscation.

Lizza notes that Bachmann was influenced by the writings of Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-84), an evangelical minister, theologian, and philosopher. Schaeffer, along with the contemporary writer Nancy Pearcey and others, are "dominionists." That is, they believe that "Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy secular institutions until Christ returns." Worse yet, Schaeffer, in A Christian Manifesto (1981), supposedly "argued for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe vs. Wade isn't reversed." Lizza also writes of the influence of the prolific author Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001), who advocated "a pure Christian theocracy in which Old Testament law...would be instituted." Bachman is allegedly thick as thieves with all these "exotic" subversives—and should be exposed as such.

Having read reams of books from all these authors (and every book by Schaeffer) over the last thirty-five years, as well as having taught many of these books at the graduate level, I assign Mr. Lizza the grade of "F." Consider four reasons.

First, Rushdoony argued for a position he called reconstructionism (not theocracy), which would have made biblical law the civil law of the land. However, neither Rushdoony nor his followers desired to impose this system through violence or illegal activity, but rather see it come to fruition through a long-term change of minds and institutions.

Second, Rushdoony's devotees make up but an infinitesimal fraction of Christian conservatives. The vast majority of those who have been influenced by certain aspects of Rushdoony's writings emphatically reject his understanding of biblical law, as do I.

Third, the key Christian influences on Bachman are not Rushdoony and his followers, but Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer referred to Rushdoony's views on mandating biblical law as "insanity," and never sanctioned any form of theocracy. (The name "Rushdoony" does not even appear in the index of Schaeffer's five-volume collected works.) Schaeffer explicitly condemned theocracy in A Christian Manifesto (p. 120-1). Nor did he call for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe V. Wade were not overturned. Schaeffer rather explained various ways of resisting tyranny according to a Christian worldview and in light of church history. He saw "civil disobedience" (his phrase) as a last resort and did not stipulate any specific conditions under which it would be advisable in America. In fact, Schaeffer worried (on p. 126) that speaking of civil disobedience is "frightening because there are so many kooky people around." Further, "anarchy is never appropriate."

Fourth, Nancy Pearcey has extended and further applied Schaeffer's thought. Like him, she does not endorse theocracy, but rather the participation by Christians as good citizens in all areas of life.

Those who tar and feather "dominionists" are confusing their readers by conflating Rushdoony's reconstructionism with the thinking of Schaeffer and Pearcey. Worse yet, Lizza and company may believe that any Christian influence in politics is dangerous and un-American. If so, they should reread and ponder the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom and the freedom of speech. Christians are free to be active members in the public square—along with those of other religions or none. Erecting "dominionist" straw men does nothing to advance this noble cause of freedom.

Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and the author of Christian Apologetics.

**PLEASE NOTE** I circulate this to educate people about the wretched (and I might add intentional) ignorance and unrelenting bias of the main stream media against Christians. This is not an endorsement of any political candidate. This is an excellent treatment of a very fundamental and important issue for all Christian to understand. John Neuhaus wrote The Naked Public Square 20 years+ ago to alert Christians that there is a deliberate and concerted effort to deny access to Christians in the political processes of America. tcf

Scripture Interprets Scripture

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.

We are preaching through the Book of Acts this year at SEC. Acts 15 is the Jerusalem Council. The verse quoted above is commentary on what took place at this assembly.

Scripture interprets Scripture. There are many who vigorously oppose the role of Elders in the NT Church. This passage is clear testimony about what took place at that gathering. The people were most certainly involved, informed and granted the dignity that each Image Bearer deserves. However, the decision was made by the Apostles and Elders. Unless you deny the Inspiration and Authority of the text this is the inescapable conclusion.

Therefore, since this polity applied then, there is nothing to say that this polity does not apply today in the NT church. I rest my case.

Deep Roots = Much Fruit

Our Child Development Center had an end-of-summer program this past Thursday. I went over to the auditorium to watch the children sing in Spanish, recite Scripture that they had learned over the summer, etc.

I noticed a dime sized hole in the side walk. Out of that hole there was a small plant growing. I reached down to pull it out. What a lesson in spiritual vitality!

The above ground portion measured 3 inches. The root was 13 inches long!!! There is a very clear lesson in this. We are commanded to bear much fruit. Deep roots, vital connection to the vine makes that possible.

John 15:1-6 John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

How deep are your roots? What is your connection to the Vine? Are you bearing fruit?