I. Howared Marshall - Father of Open Theism

While reading Michael Bird's posted communiques, author and theologian Thomas Jay Oord, known for his own discourses on God's relational love, open theism, and process thinking, discovered the following:

"Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall died recently. In Michael Bird's blog, I learned

something new: "A little known fact about Howard is that he is one of the root causes

of  Open Theism! Clark Pinnock read Howard’s 'Kept by the Power of God,' which

made him drop the “P” from “TULIP” which had a domino effect that drove Clark

Pinnock to embrace Third Wave Charismatic Renewal and eventually Open Theism.

So, for Open Theism, blame Howard for getting the ball rolling on that one!"

                                                                           - Michael F. Bird, author and theologian

                                                                                   

Hayward 2002 lecture 1: I. Howard Marshall

[the volume is bad so earbuds may be required]

Published on Apr 13, 2012

2002 Hayward Lectures

Dr. I. Howard Marshall speaks on "The Interpretation of the Bible and Development of Theology"

Lecture 1: "Evangelicals and Hermeneutics" Nov 18

* * * * * * * * * *

I. Howard Marshall | Photo from TGC

I. Howard Marshall (1934-2015)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2015/12/i-howard-marshall-1934-2015/

by Michael F. Bird

December 13, 2015

Comments

I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of I. Howard Marshall.

Just yesterday I was reading his volume Origins of Christology and it reminded me of the stature of his work and even his boldness in going against (at the time) the scholarly grain.

Howard’s influence is not simply through his many writings, but also through the 30-40 PhD students he supervised, people like Craig Blomberg, Ray Van Neste, Gary Burge, Joel Green, and Darrell Bock! So many fine evangelicals scholars were made into capable researchers at the stables of Aberdeen thanks to Howard. No wonder he was the recipient of two festschifts.

I got to know Howard during my time in Scotland, in visits to Aberdeen, through the Tyndale Fellowship, and at the British New Testament Society. I had the honour of supervising a PhD with him and learned a lot about how to be a good supervisor from him.

I have several fond memories of Howard.

First, I gave a lecture at the Tyndale Fellowship and kept mispronouncing William Wrede’s name as “Read-ay” rather than “Red-a.” When Howard questioned my pronunciation, I tried to bluff my way through and suggest that maybe it had French roots, but Howard just smiled back and said, “I-I-I-I, don’t think so Michael.”

Second, I remember the committee of the Tyndale Fellowship rejoicing that TGC was taking over the journal Themelios (which otherwise would have simply folded), but Howard wryly lamented that it was such a pity that he could not write for the journal any more, since authors had to be both Calvinists and Complementarians, of which he was neither. (UPDATE: I’ve since learned from TGC HQ that contributors to Themelios do not have to subscribe to the TGC doctrinal statement, only that they should not write anything that might undermine it).

Third, I remember getting an email from Howard asking me to translate Presbyterianism into Methodist so he could understand an EQ submission where a chap was arguing there is no such thing as positional sanctification because the Westminster Confession of Faith does not refer to any.

A little known fact about Howard is that he is one of the root causes of Open Theism! Clark Pinnock read Howard’s Kept by the Power of God, which made him drop the “P” from “TULIP” which had a domino effect that drove Clark Pinnock to embrace Third Wave Charismatic Renewal and eventually Open Theism. So for Open Theism, blame Howard for getting the ball rolling on that one!

Of his many books, I will remember his Luke commentary (NIGTC), Acts commentary (TNTC), and Lucan theology. I think his volume Aspects of Atonement is a neglected gem of a book and well worth reading (and he pushes back on his former student, Joel Green’s, critique of penal substitution). His Pastorals commentary for the ICC is hard to get pass too. I have a soft spot for his Why I Believe in the Historical Jesus? And his New Testament Theology is a very readable and rock solid volume, always sensible and even handed.

Howard typified what I would call a “British” evangelical, he was in many ways conservative in his views of biblical criticism on issues like dating and historicity (esp. on Acts), but never uncritical or unreasoned in his approach (like on the authorship of the Pastorals). He believed in the reliability of the Bible, but did not see the attraction of what I’ve called the American Inerrancy Tradition. But most of all, his scholarship was combined with a genuine and heartfelt piety, love for God, and love for others. He was such a kind and gentle soul, he epitomized the notion of a good Christian gentleman.

Howard Marshall was the kind of man who watched his life and doctrine closely (1 Tim 4.16) and we can learn not only from his scholarship but from his example.

I insist that my PhD students read Carl Trueman, “Interview with Professor Howard Marshall,” Themelios 26 (2002): 48-53, which has some great nuggets of advice for young players from Howard.

You can read other tributes by Darrell Bock and Ray Van Neste both hosted at TGC.

A younger generation might want to get a sample of Howard’s work by listening to his 2002 Hayward Lecture on “The Interpretation of the Bible and the Development of Theology.”

The lectures are also part of a book called Beyond the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), and I habitually refer students to it to discuss whether we still have to abstain from eating meat with blood in it as per the apostolic decree of Acts 15.

May he rest in peace and rise in glory!

Choral Arrangement: "My Song in the Night" by the Salt Lake Vocal Artists

My Song in the Night - Salt Lake Vocal Artists

Published on May 8, 2012

The Salt Lake Vocal Artists perform "My Song in the Night" arr. by Paul Christiansen live in concert on March 24, 2012 in the Waterford School Concert Hall, under the direction of Dr. Brady Allred.

“I call to remembrance my song in the night:

I commune with my own heart, and

my spirit made diligent search.”

- Psalm 77:6

“Where is God my maker,

who giveth songs in the night?”

- Job 35:10

My Song In The Night

O Jesus, my Savior, my song in the night

Come to us with Thy tender love, my souls’ delight,

Unto Thee O Lord in affliction I call,

My comfort by day and my song In the night.

O why should I wander an alien from Thee,

Or cry in the desert Thy face to see,

My comfort and joy, my souls’ delight,

O Jesus my Savior, my song in the night

Dominion Theology is not God's Theology of the Cross

Dominion Theology is not God's Theology of the Cross

Continuing from the other day's conversation, "What or Whom Do We Choose? The Bible or Jesus?" I would like to press this point home a bit further....

The ideologies of Dominion-based Christianity assumes it must "win" our nation or the world to the church by political and military force. Which is the height of foolishness to think the church should bear arms to "defend her God in the way of righteous living." Did Jesus do this when He came? No.

Firstly then, let us remove the picture from our heads of the God of the Old Testament as a divine warlord come to revenge Himself on all of mankind's evil empires and kingdoms. Or from the apostle John's book of Revelation picturing God as coming again with sword in His hand to judge all sin and evil so that it might be banished from the earth forever.

Did you not know that Jesus has already done this through the Cross of His suffering and sacrifice? That sin and evil has already been defeated? But don't think that guns and bullets, tanks and planes, will banish the false graven images of the God whom we falsely bear upon our hearts, minds, and souls. Nay, the work of the Cross - and the helping works of ministries - is where the final death of sin and evil must occur. Within our very human breasts and nourishing hands of hope and healing. By words that bind wounds and not open them up again.

These are the places where the false images of God must go to die so that when we read of the Old Testament's promises of God's fulfillment, or of John's revelation of Jesus' victory, we see these bourne amongst the kingdoms of men who have bowed themselves to God's glory and honor through humbling their hearts to one another.

Nor has God created this world for us to re-design or destroy in our own fallible image. He gave us His blessings by giving to us very humanity itself as our strength and blessing. As a bond for our solidarity. As a sign of our unity. So that neither by blood nor by death can God's holy creation be improved but by allowing life to simply grow and flourish in its diversity. To teem about the lands and waters by learning to listen, respect, and work with one another. Thus has God's Season of Advent become His Resurrection Song. A poetry that the very elements of the Eucharist itself speaks to through serving one another rather than harming one another.

It is a simple thing actually. This thing we think of as "salvation history" or "kingdom eschatology." There is no dominion in it at all but instead a full working partnership between God and man as man learns to work and live in peace and goodwill with one another. The banners of the Cross shall be the banners of our convicted hearts. The swords we would pick up are to be beaten into implements for food and agriculture. The shields we bear better served as tables of wine and fellowship celebrating life's joys with one another.

How much harder can this kind of creationist eschatology be actually? To think of the book of Revelation as a symbolic war where sin and evil are put to death by the powers of God's Redemption built upon the war tools of love, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and hope? To see the devils of the air as the very devils of our own hearts and minds refusing the simplicity of the Cross for something so much greater - not realizing that great things have already come and are even now happening.

These may have been the "biblical" pictures of God held back in ancient times but the discerning postmodern church of the 21st century has learned by hard, bitter experience that the way to serve  and worship God is not by taking up arms to "conquer" its sinful neighbors but by reaching out in love and service across the many waters of misunderstanding and betrayal.

That the God who revealed Himself in the New Testament revealed Himself as the God-man Jesus. Him of humble birth and lowly parental origins who was worshipped by angels and by kings at the "night of His birth" to receive the crowns of heaven-and-earth praising Him for the salvation He bore upon His life-breath, body, and soul.

That this Saviour Jesus did not come to simply effect His commands given to Moses on Mt. Sinai to the people of Israel to learn and obey. But to effect God's greater commands of loving your neighbor and enemy as fitting service to obeying God's New Testament commands written in His own blood and by His own death upon a Cross of weakness, defeat, and shame.

But let us not be so foolish to think that this Cross was anything as weak, or defeating, or shameful, because this God was raised from the dead both as sacrificial lamb and as the lion of Judah. He who was the King of David and very God of very God. That in weakness Jesus effected the power of God's salvation to all men everywhere. Whose death was no mere defeat but a victory for all time eternal. Whose only shame is that men should continue in their evil and sin refusing to bow to the mighty work of God required of a sinful people.

From Jesus Himself, as spoken through the apostles and prophets of His Word, speaks the Holy One of "Him Who Is, and Was, and Will Be" declaring to every man present, "Lay down your sword! No more shall ye put your enemy to death! Learn to love, and serve, and respect one another! And by these sacred covenantal elements that were once old but are now made new in Me shall you find your salvation I have promised!"

Essentially, Christian dominion theology had got God's narrative exactly backwards. The way to God and His Kingdom is not through political and military force but by the Cross of weakness, defeat, and shame. That the way of Jesus is through the weak and the foolish things of this world such as peace, love, and unity. And not by our own human means of "lawful living condemning others unlike us so that we continue to strive and fight with one another."

Nay, this is not God's plan. It is our own bad plans brought on by the lies of the devil and by our unholy, prideful hearts. We do not make God's kingdom - it has already been made for us. We are to but simply relax and lie down and learn to rest in the plan God had already set in place before we came along and tore it all apart.

Moreover, to assume that God needs our help is arrogance in the extreme. What God really needs help with is us doing our simple duty of respecting one another and learning to refrain from making rash polarizing statements about "them liberals, those communies, those Muslims!"

When a Christian makes these statements they reveal the short-sightedness of their ideologies which makes God a prisoner of their religious systems rather than recognizing that God is doing just fine in enacting His plan of resurrection into the world.

More rather it is the evil which we continue to commit that is the reason God's plan seems so painfully slow. Should we stop hating one another, going to war with one another, and judging one another, we would get there a lot faster.

As such, God's blessing is found in the diversity and solidarity of humanity and not in our own graven images of what we think His plan is, be it dominion theology, or reconstructionist endeavors, or even churches built everywhere to worship Him. Remember, God's plans look like foolishness to us but it is exactly those foolish plans which will allow God to effect the redemption He has brought to you through His life-force and self-sacrifice. This is our hope and promise of the future.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

December 11, 2015

  

* * * * * * * * * * *

Wrath and Governing Authorities

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/05/30/wrath-and-governing-authorities/

J.R. Daniel Kirk

May 30, 2011

Romans 13 is a tremendously challenging passage.

Sort of.

What makes it so challenging for many New Testament scholars is that it offers so little challenge to the status quo:

• The same Paul who says that the cross is the unmasking of the blindness of the rulers of the world tells people to be subject to governing authorities.
• The same Paul who proclaims Jesus as Lord now invites subjugation to earthly lords.
• The same Paul whose gospel turns the economy of the world on its head–especially with regard to justice and retribution–here affirms the economy of the world as established by God–especially with regard to justice and retribution.

Choice One - Submit to Earthly Powers

People have taken this passage in several ways. Some have suggested that it’s simply as clear as it seems: God established earthly rule for our good, so we should submit.

Choice Two - Be a Blessing

Some have suggested that its force comes, at least in part, from the temporary nature of this age. Paul expected Jesus to return soon, so we can endure self-aggrandizing governments until Christ returns to judge the earth.

Reading through Rom 12-13, I was struck by parallels in language and started to wonder if there might be something subversive about the way Paul frames things.

Romans 12 implores the readers not to repay anyone evil for evil (κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ), a command echoed at the end of ch. 12 with the exhortation not to be overcome by evil (τοῦ κακοῦ) but to overcome the evil by good.

In between these two exhortations? The idea that we don’t take our own revenge, we do the good, because we leave room for God’s wrath, God’s vengeance.

Vengeance is God’s realm. Ours is blessing: feed your hungry enemy; give drink to the thirsty enemy. (Anyone hear echoes of the Sermon on the mount? Going the extra mile, giving cloak in addition to cloak?) This testifies to a confidence in the economy of God–a testimony that may enlighten our enemies about the nature of the God we serve, or that might cause them to incur greater debt in this God’s economy.

Do good. Bless your enemy. And all that to leave room for God’s own wrath.

The Dilemma

Are we to forget all this when we come to ch. 13 and are told to subject ourselves to the governing authorities? Opposition is a cause of fear for us here–not subjection. And, there is fear from authorities only for those who do the evil thing (τῷ κακῷ).

Are we in that same realm of “repaying”? Of acting out against unjust government–with evil? Note that there is a specific kind of response in view (“evil”), and that it’s parallel to what Paul told us to avoid in ch. 12.

Even more, Paul exhorts us to feed the hungry coffers and irrigate the thirsty Imperial treasury: “Render to all what is due them, tax to whom tax is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

On the one hand, Paul issues a simple call to submit to those who order the world around us.

But perhaps, not too far below the surface, is an expectation that we can submit to such governing authorities because they themselves are subject to the judgment of God. And if we would see them unseated and repaid for their ill work, the thing to do is “heap burning coals on their heads” by returning blessing for their insults and persecutions.

This opens the door to the idea that Rom 13 is about more than mere submission and honor of the government. It cracks open, perhaps, a view of the cosmos in which such submission might play a larger role in bringing about true justice, justice that cannot be meted out by the hands of kings.

What that might mean for us in our own context either as we endure evil, or as we think about participating in our Republic’s governance, or see evil perpetrated in countries other than our own–this doesn’t answer any of those questions. But it might open up another avenue of reflection on what faithful Christian earthly citizenship might mean, and how it relates to the economy of the Kingdom of God.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Dominion Theology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

Dominion Theology is a theocratic ideology that seeks to implement a nation governed by conservative Christians ruling over the rest of society based on their understanding of biblical law. Dominion Theology is related totheonomy, though it does not necessarily advocate Mosaic law as the basis of government.

Prominent adherents of Dominion Theology are otherwise theologically diverse, including the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism and the charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology and New Apostolic Reformation.

The term Dominion Theology is applied primarily among non-mainstream Protestants in the United States. Some elements within the mainstream Christian right have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term "Dominionism" more broadly to the mainstream Christian right, implicitly arguing that that movement is founded upon a theology that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians. Mainstream conservatives do not call themselves "Dominionists," and the usage has sparked considerable controversy.

Etymology

The term "Dominion Theology" is derived from the King James Bible's rendering of Genesis 1:28, the passage in which God grants humanity "dominion" over the Earth.

And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

In the late 1980s, several prominent evangelical authors used the phrase Dominion Theology (and other terms such as dominionism) to label a loose grouping of theological movements that made direct appeals to this passage in Genesis.[1] Christians typically interpret this passage as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but the distinctive aspect of Dominion Theology is that it is interpreted as a mandate for Christian stewardship in civil affairs, no less than in other human matters.

Seven Mountains

David Barton has advocated what he calls "seven mountains prophecy" where Christian conservatives should control and dominate "family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government.[2]

History

Most of the contemporary movements labeled Dominion Theology or Dominionism arose in the 1970s in religious movements reasserting aspects of Christian nationalism. Ideas for how to accomplish this vary. Very doctrinaire versions of Dominion Theology are sometimes called "Hard Dominionism" or "Theocratic Dominionism," because they seek relatively authoritarian theocratic or theonomic forms of government.

Christian Reconstructionism

Main article: Christian Reconstructionism

An example of Dominionism in reformed theology is Christian Reconstructionism, which originated with the teachings of R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960s and 1970s. Rushdoony's theology focuses on theonomy (the rule of the Law of God), a belief that all of society should be ordered according to the laws that governed the Israelites in the Old Testament. His system is strongly Calvinistic, emphasizing the sovereignty of God over human freedom and action, and denying the operation of charismatic gifts in the present day (cessationism); both of these aspects are in direct opposition to Kingdom Now Theology.

Full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among most Christians.[3][4][5] Dave Hunt,[6] Hal Lindsey,[7] and Thomas Ice[8] specifically criticize Christian Reconstructionism from a Christian viewpoint, disagreeing on theological grounds with its theocratic elements as well as its Calvinism and postmillennialism. J. Ligon Duncan,[9] Sherman Isbell,[10] Vern Poythress,[11] Robert Godfrey,[12] and Sinclair Ferguson[13] analyze Reconstructionism as conservative Calvinists, primarily giving a theological critique of its theocratic elements.

Michael J. McVicar has noted that many leading Christian Reconstructionists are also leading writers on libertarian economic theories.[14]

Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Christian Reconstructionism.[15][16][17]

Kingdom Now theology

Kingdom Now theology is a branch of Dominion Theology which has had a following within Pentecostalism. It attracted attention in the late 1980s.[18][19]

Kingdom Now theology states that although Satan has been in control of the world since the Fall, God is looking for people who will help him take back dominion. Those who yield themselves to the authority of God's apostles and prophets will take control of the kingdoms of this world, being defined as all social institutions, the "kingdom" of education, the "kingdom" of science, the "kingdom" of the arts, etc.[20] C. Peter Wagner, the founder of the New Apostolic Reformation, writes: "The practical theology that best builds a foundation under social transformation is dominion theology, sometimes called 'Kingdom Now.' Its history can be traced back through R. J. Rushdoony andAbraham Kuyper to John Calvin."[21]

Kingdom Now theology is influenced by the Latter Rain movement,[22] and critics have connected it to the New Apostolic Reformation,[23] "Spiritual Warfare Christianity",[22] and Fivefold ministry thinking.[24]

Kingdom Now theology should not be confused with Kingdom theology, which is related to inaugurated eschatology.

Dominion Theology and the Christian Right
See also: Christian right

In the late 1980s sociologist Sara Diamond[25][26] began writing about the intersection of Dominion Theology with the political activists of the Christian Right. Diamond argued that "the primary importance of the [Christian Reconstructionist] ideology is its role as a catalyst for what is loosely called 'dominion theology.'" According to Diamond, "Largely through the impact of Rushdoony's and North's writings, the concept that Christians are Biblically mandated to 'occupy' all secular institutions has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right."[25]:138 (emphasis in original) in the United States.

While acknowledging the small number of actual adherents, authors such as Sara Diamond and Frederick Clarkson have argued that postmillennial Christian Reconstructionism played a major role in pushing the primarily premillennial Christian Right to adopt a more aggressive dominionist stance.[27]

Misztal and Shupe concur that “Reconstructionists have many more sympathizers who fall somewhere within the dominionist framework, but who are not card-carrying members.”[28] According to Diamond, "Reconstructionism is the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, brand of dominion theology."[27]

Journalist Frederick Clarkson[29][30] 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 the United States.

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.[31]

In 1995, Diamond called the influence of Dominion Theology "prevalent on the Christian Right".[32]

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."[33]

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:[34]

• 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.

• Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

• 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.[34]

Essayist Katherine Yurica began using the term dominionism in her articles in 2004, beginning with "The Despoiling of America", (February 11, 2004),[35][36][37] Authors who also use the term dominionism in the broader sense include journalist Chris Hedges [38][39][40] Marion Maddox,[41] James Rudin,[42] Michelle Goldberg,[43][44] Kevin Phillips,[45] Sam Harris,[46] Ryan Lizza,[47] Frank Schaeffer,[48] and the group TheocracyWatch.[49] Some authors have applied the term to a broader spectrum of people than have Diamond, Clarkson, and Berlet.

Sarah Posner in Salon argues that there are various "iterations of dominionism that call on Christians to enter...government, law, media and so fort...so that they are controlled by Christians." According to Posner, "Christian right figures promoted dominionism...and the GOP courted...religious leaders for the votes of their followers." She added: "If people really understood dominionism, they’d worry about it between election cycles."[50]

Michelle Goldberg notes[51] that George Grant, wrote in his 1987 book The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action:“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.....But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.... Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”
A spectrum of dominionism

Writers including Chip Berlet[52] and Frederick Clarkson[34] distinguish between what they term "hard" and "soft" dominionism. Such commentators define "soft" dominionism as the belief that "America is a Christian nation" and opposition to separation of church and state, while "hard" dominionism refers to dominion theology and Christian Reconstructionism.

Michelle Goldberg uses the terms "Christian Nationalism" and "Dominionism" for the former view.[43] According to Goldberg:

In many ways, Dominionism is more a political phenomenon than a theological one. It cuts across Christian denominations, from stern, austere sects to the signs-and-wonders culture of modern megachurches. Think of it like political Islamism, which shapes the activism of a number of antagonistic fundamentalist movements, from Sunni Wahabis in the Arab world to Shiite fundamentalists in Iran.[53]

Berlet and Clarkson have agreed that "[s]oft Dominionists are Christian nationalists."[52] Unlike "dominionism", the phrase "Christian nation" occurs commonly in the writings of leaders of the Christian Right. Proponents of this idea (such as David Barton and D. James Kennedy) argue that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutionare based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character is fundamental to American culture.[54][55][56] They cite, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court's comment in 1892 that "this [the United States] is a Christian nation,"[57] after citing numerous historical and legal arguments in support of that statement.[58][59]

Criticism of the usage of the term "dominionism"

Those labeled dominionists rarely use the terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" for self-description, and some people have attacked the use of such words.[1] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that such usage aims "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned".[60] Journalist Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense", "political paranoia", and "guilt by association",[61] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass".[62] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism:

The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it's downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper's cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside 'the old polite rules of democracy'. So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.[61]

Joe Carter of First Things writes:

[T]here is no “school of thought” known as “dominionism”. The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation.[63]

Diamond has denied that she coined the broader use of the term "dominionism,"[64] which appears in her dissertation and in Roads to Dominion solely to describe Dominion Theology. Nevertheless, Diamond did originate the idea that Dominion Theology is the "central unifying ideology for the Christian Right."[25]:138

Jeremy Pierce of First Things coined the word "dominionismist" to describe those who promote the idea that there is a dominionist conspiracy, writing:

It strikes me as irresponsible to lump [Rushdoony] together with Francis Schaeffer and those influenced by him, especially given Schaeffer’s many recorded instances of resisting exactly the kinds of views Rushdoony developed. Indeed, it strikes me as an error of the magnitude of some of Rushdoony’s own historical nonsense to consider there to be such a view called Dominionism [sic] that Rushdoony, Schaeffer, James Dobson, and all the other people in the list somehow share and that it seeks to get Christians and only Christians into all the influential positions in secular society.[65]

Lisa Miller of Newsweek writes that "'dominionism' is the paranoid mot du jour" (referring to the French for "word of the day") and that "certain journalists use 'dominionist' the way some folks on Fox News use the word "sharia" [for Islamic law]. Its strangeness scares people. Without history or context, the word creates a siege mentality in which 'we' need to guard against 'them'."[66] Ross Douthat of The New York Times noted that "many of the people that writers like Diamond and others describe as 'dominionists' would disavow the label, many definitions of dominionism conflate several very different Christian political theologies, and there’s a lively debate about whether the term is even useful at all."[67]

Other criticism has focused on the proper use of the term. Berlet wrote that "just because some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point does not mean we should abandon the term",[68] and argued that, rather than labeling conservatives as extremists, it would be better to "talk to these people" and "engage them."[69] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory", and argued that instead one should "analyze the subtle ways" that ideas like Dominionism "take hold within movements and why".[32]

Is There a Crisis in Conservative Protestantism? (How To Engage the Moral Politics of the Day)

link to article

by Carl R. Tureman

December 9, 2015

[comments mine - re slater]

In October, I had the pleasure of attending both the lecture and subsequent seminar given for First Things by Ross Douthat on the crisis in conservative Catholicism. Not being a Roman Catholic, I was there very much as an outside observer of the discussion but it raised for me the obvious questions: Is there a parallel crisis in conservative Protestantism and, if so, in what does it consist?

Douthat’s argument—that conservative Catholics overestimated their success and influence both in the political and ecclesiastical sphere, has limited parallels in conservative Protestantism. Certainly, the cultural power of conservative Protestants has massively declined since the days when threats of a boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention could strike fear into the heart of a corporate CEO. As with their Roman Catholic counterparts, politically conservative Protestants are coming to realize that they placed too much faith in the political process. Yet, on the ecclesiastical front, Douthat’s crisis assumes the importance of a unified, institutional church. The fissiparous nature of Protestantism means that such a crisis cannot happen. We are, after all, by definition schismatics from a Roman Catholic perspective. In this sense, Roman Catholics would no doubt see Protestantism in itself as constituting a permanent crisis. 

Nevertheless, setting Roman Catholic objections aside, I would suggest three areas where conservative Protestantism in the USA—at least its broadly reformed strand with which I am familiar—could be said to be, if not in crisis, then certainly moving toward such.

First, far too much power is exerted by wealthy and influential parachurch organizations. A good example of this was provided this year by events surrounding the attempted exchange about Evangelicals and Catholics Together which was commissioned by Reformation21, the e-zine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Three of us were involved: Timothy George, Thomas Guarino, and myself. The exchange was respectful, honest, friendly, but frank. My own article was scarcely a paean of praise to the ECT process.

Within hours of the first article (that of Tim) being published, a tweet and a hostile blog post by a senior representative of another Reformed parachurch group based in Florida, followed by rumored behind-the-scenes shenanigans, were enough to get the series pulled (and then thankfully picked up by First Things—kudos to Rusty Reno). Sad to say, one parachurch group had effectively closed down perfectly legitimate discussion in an unconnected forum by sheer bully-boy tactics.

An aberration? Unfortunately not. This is symptomatic of the way things are in much of the conservative Protestant world. As long as the most influential parachurches are run like businesses, money and marketing will be the overriding concerns, even as concern for ‘the gospel’ is always the gloss. Reinforced by a carrot-and-stick system of feudal patronage connected to lucrative conference gigs, publishing deals, and access to publicity, such tactics as those described will continue to be deployed. Roman Catholics might look on Protestantism from the outside and see it as theology ruled by a mob [sic, mobocracy; ochlocracy]. Speaking as an insider, it often seems to me to be ruled more by the Mob.

The second problem for much of conservative Protestantism is a related one, highlighted by Roger Scruton. Scruton has rightfully stated that it is “surely impossible to flee from kitsch by taking refuge in religion, when religion itself is kitsch.” (The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Modern Culture, p. 92). There is indeed an unbearable, kitschy lightness to so much that passes for conservative Protestant life and thought. The theology that sells is by and large a cheap, rootless imitation of the real thing. Year after year, the same brand names churn out bland, lightweight books on whatever is the topic of the moment, with no regard to authorial competence. It is the names that sell, after all. And thus the same speakers fill the same conference rosters time after time, with the supercharged aesthetics of the platforms distracting the audience from the insipid content of the performances. So much sound and fury. So much signifying nothing. 

I suspect this cannot be sustained, or at least cannot be sustained with the same audience, over an extended period of time. It is kitsch and therefore ephemeral. If we imitate the shallowness of pop culture, we can expect to replicate the life expectancy of the same. Boy bands come and boy bands go, after all. Popular fashion is indeed a cruel mistress, and a faith whose practices and idioms are really anchored in the tastes of the moment is inextricably tied to that moment.

Finally, conservative Protestantism lacks a strong tradition of social thought which might help it counter the kitsch and engage with the many challenges that are being cast its way by contemporary society. Now, I am a big believer in the church being the church. The Benedict Option offers little that is really new to me. I have always thought the church needs to be a spiritual community of sojourners in this world. But every member of my congregation has to live to some extent in the world. Every day they face questions that demand thoughtful and careful answers, whether it is as personal as the legitimacy of forms of fertility treatment or as public as how to navigate identity politics in the workplace. 

Compared to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism is playing catch-up in the areas of moral theology at a point in time where this is possibly too little too late. The old ‘God, guns, and America’ approach of the Religious Right is a spent force (thankfully so) but Protestantism does not currently have much with which to replace it. The work of men like David VanDrunen on natural law is proving very helpful but we need more of our finest minds engaging with the moral issues of the day, not so much to persuade the world to change its mind but at least to give clarity of thought to our own people as they go about their daily callings.

I do not believe that Protestants need to become Roman Catholics but we do need to understand the problems which beset us from within. The big money parachurch ministries depend upon constant recreation of a market for theological kitsch, and theological kitsch drives out the kind of deep thought which really does need to be the focus of the church’s efforts and resources at this point. Therein, I suspect, lies the coming crisis of conservative Protestantism.

*Carl R. Trueman is Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary.

The Hyposcrispy of Using Luke 22:36 As a Proof-Text for Packing Heat

Credit: James Shepard, Flickr Creative Commons

"... No matter how wonderful we might think our exegesis is, if our interpretation does

not lead us towards love of God and neighbor, then our interpretation is wrong."

- Zach Hunt

Jesus Was A Hypocrite

http://zackhunt.net/2015/12/09/jesus-was-a-hypocrite/

by Zack Hunt

December 9, 2015

A little while back I wrote a post asking “Are Bible Verses The Worst Thing Ever?”

This past week or so as I’ve read Christian defenses of Jerry Falwell Jr.’s call to kill Muslims and heard Christian rallying cries for more guns in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting, I’ve wanted to answer that question once again with a resounding “yes.”

Sure, there are obviously things worse than the Bible being divided into chapters and verses – like nuclear war or genocide or cancer – but few things have the power to engender, condone, and sanctify evil like a biblical proof-text.

Case in point: Luke 22:36,

He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise

a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

Taken in stripped down isolation, as I’ve seen done countless times in the past few weeks, it seems like the ultimate trump card for arguing that Christians should pack heat.

Of course, sequestered like that, Psalm 14:1b – “there is no God” – could be the ultimate trump card for atheism.

But the simple truth of the matter is there is nothing divine about the arrangement of the Bible into chapters and verses. In fact, they didn’t really even exist until the 13th century. But in trying to help the faithful more easily access and reference scripture, the inventors of the biblical chapters and verses unwittingly unleashed one of the most destructive forces in human history: the biblical proof-text; a weapon that needed only the effort to cite it to be effective and could be wielded at a moment’s notice to destroy any enemy and justify any action, no matter how heinous or unholy that action might be.

Sometimes though, and to the eternal consternation of the holy warrior, some of those proof-texts, when seen in their original context actually mean something quite different than we are led to believe.

As clear cut as it seems, the currently en vogue invocation of Luke 22:36 is a textbook example of a verse being used as a proof-text for something it can’t possibly mean.

Now, to be clear, Christians have been debunking this proof-text for quite a while. I am simply adding my voice to that choir because it doesn’t seem like anyone is listening. Perhaps, the louder the chorus becomes, the more likely it is that someone will eventually hear the truth.

So, here’s the thing about Luke 22:36.

If it’s true that counter to everything he said and did in his public ministry, in this private moment Jesus has declared that those closest to him should own swords (or in our case today, guns) for their own defense, then there is only one conclusion we can draw.

Jesus was a hypocrite.

And the rest of the gospel makes no sense.

If Jesus is truly pro-violence – in any form – in Luke 22:36, then the Sermon on the Mount is hypocritical nonsense. For in it, Jesus blesses the peacemaker, commands his followers to turn the other cheek, love their enemies, and pray for those who persecute them. He even goes so far as to equate hate alone with murder.

If Jesus is really telling his disciples to pick up their swords to defend themselves against their enemies, then his command to Peter (just a handful of verses later) to put down his sword is inexplicable. Yes, he was concerned with fulfilling prophecy, but even that concern (as we will see in a moment) only reinforces his commitment to non-violence. Moreover, even if we dismiss the specific command to Peter as something only relevant to that particular moment in time (which, curiously, is not something we do with anything else in the gospels – except, of course, Jesus’ call to sell everything and given to the poor), then we’re still left with Jesus’ unequivocal denunciation of violence and a life lived armed and ready for combat: “Whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”

Once again, if Jesus is actually telling his followers to prepare for a fight, then on top of being a hypocrite, Jesus also becomes a liar. For, when he stands trial before Pilate he grounds his defense in the fact that his follower do not fight.

But that is just the tip of the exegetical iceburg of problems with using Luke 22:36 as a proof-text for packing heat.

If Jesus was literally calling his follower to carry the sword (rather than making a prophetic point), then we’re left trying to explain why there is no mention anywhere in the New Testament of anyone in the early Church carrying a weapon with them into any of the dangerous situations they found themselves in. In fact, if anything, the book of Acts alone is a testament to the early Church’s dedication to non-violence for records the deaths of the first Christian martyrs, including Stephen who was stoned to death without putting up a fight and James, brother of John, who was, perhaps ironically, killed by someone else’s sword as he conspicuously did not have one of his own with which to defend himself.

Moreover, if Jesus was indeed ordaining the use of violence in Luke 22:36, then we are left to explain why no one in the first three centuries of the Church’s history seemed to have received that memo. For the early Church was – in the name of the Lord – almost universally pacifist until its unholy union in the 4th century with Constantine and his violence dependent empire.

So, then, how are we to interpret Luke 22:36?

Well, first, we need to look at the entire pericope because, as I said before, we can’t just rip this passage out of its context and expect it understand what is really being said.

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals,

did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you

don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered

with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what

is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

Now, I know even with the immediate context, if we do no further digging, it still seems plausible to use this passage as a proof-text for God-ordained violence.

But let’s dig a little deeper.

Early Church Theologians Origen and Augustine

And let’s do that by turning our gaze towards two of the most important figures in the early Church: Origen and Augustine. Their rules for reading and interpreting scripture are tremendously helpful, particularly in light of those modern interpreters who rely on what they euphmastically refer to as a “hermeneutic of common sense” which, ironically, makes no sense given that 1) we live in an incredibly diverse world full of an almost unimaginable diversity of outloooks on life and 2) more importantly, Jesus’ sense of the world was anything but common.

Anyway, for Origen, there are stumbling blocks in scripture which the Holy Spirit allowed to be there in order to draw us deeper into the text, moving us beyond the literal sense of what was on the page and towards the spiritual sense where the true meaning can be found.

We see such a stumbling block at the end of Jesus’ exchange with his disciples when they hold up 2 swords and he says, “That’s enough!”

This alone should send up red flags about the literalness of Jesus’ call to arms. For, on simply a pragmatic level, 2 swords is neither “enough” to start a rebellion, nor even to fend off the authorities who were on their way to arrest Jesus.

Therefore, as many scholars argue, Jesus’ declaration of “That’s enough” is probably best understood not as him exclaiming “Sweet! You guys already have what we need!” but rather him crying out in exasperation as he had so many times before, “You guys still don’t get it.” Yes, Jesus was warning them about terrible times to come, but the battle to come is against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, not flesh and blood. Swords would be of no help. Therefore, they should be prepared for spiritual warfare, not physical violence.

Now, for Augustine (and really Jesus too if you think about it), our reading of scripture must be grounded in the Greatest Commandment. That is to say, no matter how wonderful we might think our exegesis is, if our interpretation does not lead us towards love of God and neighbor, then our interpretation is wrong.

We can’t be ready to love our enemies, when we’re already preparing ourselves to kill them.

Our reading of this passage from Luke, then, must keep us focused on the radical love and self-sacrifice Jesus lived out and called his followers to continue to embody in their own lives. To find that focus and, in fact, to find the key to understanding everything Jesus is saying here, we need to look at what he says in verse 37.

It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that

this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.

We hear Jesus say “it is written” a lot all throughout the gospels, usually without giving much thought to where it is written. In this case, the context of what Jesus is quoting is of critical importance (shocker, I know).

Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 53:12.

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

It comes from a famous chapter of messianic prophecy which you probably don’t recognize from that passage, but I’m sure you’ll recognize based on some of the early verses.

Surely he took up our pain

and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,

stricken by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to our own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

In between that famous prophecy and the passage Jesus quoted, we find a passage that really illuminates what it means for Jesus to be “numbered with the transgressors.”

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.

The emphasis is mine, of course, but it’s a critical point that can’t be missed when understanding what Jesus is saying – and not saying – in Luke 22:33-38.

A radical commitment to non-violence was essential to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah.

If Jesus was indeed calling his follower to arms, to be prepared for violence, then as their leader, as the one issuing that command, he too was participating in that violence.

Which would violate the prophecy he was so concerned with fulfilling.

And if in private Jesus was indeed calling his followers to arms despite everything he said and did publicly before and after that moment, then the Sermon on the Mount, his words to Peter, and his testimony before Pilate were all examples of deceit issuing forth from his mouth.

Which, again, would violate the prophecy he was so concerned with fulfilling.

As followers of this Messiah, if we want to claim the name of Christ as the marker of our identity, then we must seek to live as he lived. That doesn’t mean we’ll do it perfectly, but it does mean we must walk the same path of peace he blazed for us and called us to follow him down no matter how afraid of doing so we might be.

Which is why, given this and given all the other evidence I have already cited, there is simply no way to read Luke 22:36 with any integrity and claim that it is a God ordained endorsement of violence.

It just doesn’t work.

The only way that can be done is to completely ignore the immediate context and utterly disregard everything both Jesus and the early Church said and did.

Now, that doesn’t mean I personally don’t think you should own a gun. Speaking personally, I have no issue with hunting or recreational target practice, though I know plenty of other Christians do.

But, if you’re in need of a divine proof-text for packing heat in self-defense, you’re gonna have to look somewhere other than Luke 22:36.