Why Outcome Theology, like Outcome Politics, Betrays One's Faith

The church of Jesus Christ is [seemingly] absent in its season of Advent supposedly
proclaiming to the world Jesus' incarnate resurrectedness into humanity and all
 creation. A season we know as Christmas. But a season that is anything but
incarnate or ressurected. - re slater, 12.1.15

Faith's Old World

Lately I have been struggling with all the absurdity I have been listening to from the church in this season of American presidential politics (Fall 2015). The faith of Jesus I hold so precious is being blasted by many a Christian voice proclaiming distrust, fear, and protectionism from radical Islam as it rages to new heights known as Islamophobia. A height so great as to close America's borders to all immigrants seeking refuge and respite from hardship and evil while at the same time beating the war drum of vengeance upon all its self-proclaimed enemies.

An untenable plight causing us to ask ourselves, "Where is the church of Jesus Christ" who came to minister, heal, serve, and love the stranger, the despised, the outcast, even His enemy? As taken from the political rhetoric I have been listening to this kind of church of Christ is absent in its season of Advent supposedly proclaiming to the world Jesus' incarnate resurrectedness into humanity and all creation. A season we know as Christmas. But a season that is anything but incarnate or resurrected.

If incarnate, than the followers of Christ would act and speak differently than what I have been hearing. And if resurrected, there would be another kind of attitude - one of hope, healing, power, and strength - coming from within the church based upon its confidence in its Redeemer. But in its place I instead listen to the church's dream and deep-seated hope for Christ's coming as a bloody Conqueror to the world of sinful mankind in end-time expectation. An expectation that does no justice at all to the Jesus' present-time Sermon on the Mount. A Sermon preaching peace, grace, mercy, and forgiveness, not destruction and warfare.

Bad theologies, like bad dogmas, are prime motivators for why the world is as much at war now as it has been through the ages. Whether Jesus comes to kill, or to grant forgiveness, to the damned in the book Revelation is moot when held to the veracities of preaching grace and peace in the church now as shown to us through the Gospels of Christ. To read Revelation so literally as to wait in hope for its mythic language to leap from its pages is a grave error both ecclesiastically as well as eschatologically re the presentness of God's Kingdom now through Christ. Perhaps, we might consider Revelation's language as more that of "man's ancient struggle with sin within his own heart depicting a divine war between the Ancient of Days (Yahweh) for man's graceless hearts and prideful vengeance?" Nonetheless, it matters not what our eschatology is in the face of Christ's example of ministry and service in the gospels. If it will be so than it will be so. Till then we work by following our Lord into the throes of social justice, mercy, and grace to all, even our enemies.

Moreover, we reset our priorities and agendas to "work and speak and act" towards one another as real human beings in "solidarity with humankind" working towards the divine graces of peace and goodwill. To speak up against social injustices. To advocate for the despised and hated. To appreciate the needful distance between church and state. And to respect the civil rights of all men whoever they be. The Constitutional of the United States has all this goodness and appeal within it. A constitution partly built on the non-mainline church's oppressive experiences with the mainline churches of the Old World, and partly built upon its aspirations and dreams for a greater colony/society lived to the highest maxims of peace and goodwill, of tolerance and helpfulness to one another. This is no mistake. It was built upon hardship, religious oppression, exclusionary doctrines, and bad dogmas from the Old Europe. Let us not repeat this mistake and take an "Old World" view of our present situations today.

But if so, then the culmination of man's endless wars with each other is annihilation and doom caused by bad theology + bad politics. This would be the rightful equation for ungodly despair whether held by sinner or saint. A despair that is unnecessary if Christianity would pragmatically heed Jesus' call to grace and peace.

Or, even listen to the serious attempts by the moral parts of this world wishing to make peace with one another regardless of religion, faith, or doctrine. In the world's eyes, religion but seemingly adds gas to the fires of the ignobility of mankind when held to the lower standards of strife and  pride.

Faith's New World

So then, let us examine the several ways which orthodox Christianity might elevate its speech and doctrines. One comes from listening to one another. Another way comes from examining our beliefs and motives. And yet a third by repenting to God as seeking the light of His glory in our walks of life. Let's first begin with an introduction and then examine Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a prime candidate of a Christian caught between the crossfires of faith and reality:

"We wish to rupture the faith of the land. To disturb it, stir it, apply it, and

re-examine it at every level of our thought and being, actions and attitudes.

Even as the Lord Himself did during the times of His ministry to the lost

generations of both believers and unbelievers alike." - re slater, 10.16.14

At Relevancy22 we follow many of the trends within Christianity - whether from a radical anti-Christian viewpoint (aka Radical Christianity), or from a deeply convicted liberal view (aka biblical hermeneutics et al), or as a conservative traditionalist (mainstream (neo-)evangelicalism and postfundamentalism  - with a flavoring of Christian "common sense realism" that might be applied to each group's grasp of the truth as they wish to see it and purvey it. Similar to a cluster of blind scientists trying to describe an elephant - one thinking the animal is all nose, the other all hide, and the third large ears, missing the animal itself, so too Bonhoeffer is caricatured in this way by all theologic parties involved.

So that, when coming to Radical Theology, we will admit to that aspect of Christianity that can (and should be) religionless realizing that our cultures can never attain this aspect, only aspire within its religions and denominations.

That when coming to Liberal Christianity we should pay attention to liberal scholarship's observations and statements of the Bible as scholars in their own right of academia just so long as they do not loose the tradition of the historic orthodox Christian faith in Christ Jesus. An orthodox faith which we here at Relevancy22 have intentionally been elevating and re-describing within today's postmodern, post-secular, post-Christian contexts (heretofore described as emergent Christianity or postmodern Christianity but now as progressive Christianity). Contexts that neither deny Jesus nor refuse to listen to the newer discoveries and observations made of the Christian faith and its religious foundations. A difficult tightrope to walk... but nonetheless we walk it without collapsing into a loss of faith in the God who loves. And loves us through His Son as the ultimate expression of His grace and truth.

And finally, when coming to conservative Christianity - one which this writer here (myself) was birthed within and from the depths of its bowels - we seek its truths. But also wish to display its foibles, its bad theology, and fallacious dogmas. We would do the historic Christian faith no justice if we were not to examine all its foundations, its philosophies, its directions and bearing, lest we loose that precious faith itself to the false prophets of our day. Whether they be in the pulpits of the church or at the dais of the university lecture rooms. All who pretend to examine Jesus must proclaim Him Lord and King, Savior and God. Suffering Servant and loving Humanitarian.

Jesus is the conundrum of faith even as He can be all things to Radicals, Liberals, or Conservatives. Each group, each direction, each organization of thought has its own philosophical and religious lenses through which it chooses to see Jesus and the Christian faith. No less we here at Relevancy22 using a combination of all the above approaches without losing sight of the Lord's calling to be the mustard seed, the new wine, the lost coin of the Kingdom realm. Even the found faith of our days and times, years and appointments.

We wish to rupture the faith of the land. To disturb it, stir it, apply it, and re-examine it at every level of our thought and being, actions and attitudes. Even as the Lord Himself did during the times of His ministry to the lost generations of both believers and unbelievers alike. So be ye then salt, and light, and new wine, in the name of the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2014

revised December 19, 2014

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Eric Metaxas and the Egregious Misuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

http://www.scottpaeth.com/2014/03/eric-metaxas-and-the-egregious-misuse-of-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html

by Scott R. Paeth
Associate Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University in Chicago, IL. He works in the fields of Christian Social Ethics and Public Theology.

March 20, 2014

I could have as easily titled this post "The Egregious Eric Metaxas's misuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," because, make no mistake, Metaxas is egregious, and the cottage industry he has cultivated in selling right wing Christian self-righteousness under the banner of comparing their moral sclerosis to the genuine courage and moral risk taken by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is disgusting and offensive. And the fact that he has done it through a biographical hatchet job that has become successful by flattering the delusions of American evangelicals that they are embroiled in a struggle for the soul of America that is in some way equivalent to that of the German Confessing Church just piles offense on offense.

So, when I read that, once more, Metaxas is peddling evangelical victimology under the cover of Bonhoeffer, I am both unsurprised and appalled. His latest comes in the form of an interview on a conservative Christian radio show, where he states, while comparing the struggles of Bonhoeffer (who, as a reminder, was murdered by the Nazis for his involvement in a conspiracy against the Reich):

"I’m talking about the theological liberals in the mainstream church that is just getting off in a whole other direction where they are just failing to teach biblical orthodoxy, failing to teach the Bible as the word of God and yet they still think of themselves as the church,” he said. “We see that obviously happening in issues of sexuality, but how can you say that most mainline denominations in America today are profoundly Christian when they have given up the ghost on all of these fundamentals of the faith? You had the exact same thing happening in Germany. It’s just setting things up so that when evil comes, where do people turn?"

So, just to be clear: Metaxas is hijacking the legacy and reputation of a man who, in a state of great moral and spiritual conflict, chose to resist what is commonly understood to be the most evil and despicable regime of the 20th century - a regime that corralled and murdered, among many others, homosexuals - and using that legacy to argue that the welcome extended by liberal churches to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is somehow "the exact same thing" as the complacent acceptance of Nazism by German Christians in the 1930s.

I'm sorry, but this is a crime against history and an offense against Christianity. It's bad theology, bad biblical criticism, and bad ethics. There is simply no basis for anyone to grant Eric Metaxas any credibility as an historian or as a commentator on Bonhoeffer, let alone a spokesperson for what constitutes "biblical orthodoxy" (a term I want to come back to in a moment). But of course, we've known this for a long time. One of the first -- and best -- reviews of Metaxas's Bonhoeffer biography was written by Clifford Green in The Christian Century and it completely and utterly dismantles the book. A small sample of that review:

"Two aspects of Bonhoeffer are so disturbing to Metaxas that he has to deny them outright or try to explain them away. Bonhoeffer, he insists, was not a pacifist. While pacifism as usually understood is not a good word to describe Bonhoeffer's position, his Christian peace ethic was rooted in the core doctrines of his theology—his Christology and his understanding of discipleship, his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and his doctrine of the church. He did not abandon his peace ethic while working to kill Hitler and end the Nazi regime. Just one sign of this stance is the fact that even during the war Bonhoeffer wrote in his Ethics and spoke to his fiancée in support of conscientious objection. These matters of theology and ethics are too subtle for Metaxas; consequently his treatment of the Lasserre-Bonhoeffer friendship in New York falsifies the sources and wallows in sentimentality.

"Worse, if possible, is Metaxas's embarrassment about Bonhoeffer's writing in Letters and Papers from Prison about "religionless Christianity." In a Trinity Forum interview he even stated that Bonhoeffer "never really said it," but then had to retract that because, well, Bonhoeffer did say it. But, Metaxas continues, he wrote it privately in a letter to Bethge and never intended anyone to see it because it was "utterly out of keeping with the rest of Bonhoeffer's life." He calls Bonhoeffer's theological prison reflections a "few bone fragments . . . set upon by famished kites and less noble birds, many of whose descendants gnaw them still.""

Green concludes that "Given all this, the most descriptive and honest title for Metaxas's book would perhaps beBonhoeffer Co-opted. Or better: Bonhoeffer Hijacked." But, here, because he completely deserves it, let me pile on a bit from another review:

"The result is a terrible oversimplification and at times misinterpretation of Bonhoeffer’s thought, the theological and ecclesial world of his times, and the history of Nazi Germany. There are numerous errors, some small, some rather stunning. The most glaring errors occur in his account of the church struggle, which is portrayed as the battle between the Nazi-controlled German Christians against Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who here leads the Confessing Church together with Martin Niemoeller. In Metaxas’ version, the Barmen declaration repudiates Nazi anti-Semitism, the Confessing Church breaks away from the Reich Church, and the neutral or intact churches are completely absent from the scene (there are not even index entries for Bishops Wurm, Marahrens, or Meiser, the last of whom is referred to but not named). Bonhoeffer of course leads the way, both in the name of true Christianity and on behalf of the Jews. This oversimplification of the battle lines and the complexities of the church struggle (and of Bonhoeffer himself) characterizes the portrayal of the entire period. National Socialism and its leaders are of course unambiguously anti-Christian. Most of the generals in the resistance against Hitler, we learn, are “serious Christians”. Luther’s anti-Semitism is attributed to his digestive troubles, and Metaxas does not address how anti-Semitism, whatever its source, had permeated the mindset of German Protestantism and the wider culture. ... In some places it is offensive, as when Metaxas argues that supporters of the Aryan paragraph were not really anti-Semitic: “Some believed that an ethnically Jewish person who was honestly converted to Christian faith should be part of a church composed of other converted Jews. Many sincere white American Christians felt that way about Christians of other races until just a few decades ago.” (Why, some of their best friends …). Along the way Metaxas inserts shorthand summaries that range from the silly (Luther as “the Catholic monk who invented Protestantism”) to the bizarre (the difference between Barth and Harnack is compared to contemporary debates “between strict Darwinian evolutionists and advocates of so-called Intelligent Design”)."

There is only one reason that Metaxas hasn't been completely laughed out of any and all serious conversation about Bonhoeffer, and that is because he flatters the self-conception of conservative evangelicals.

I should probably just end there, but it is worth noting a couple of the underlying problems in Metaxas's whole approach, particularly in this interview. First is his insistence that the dividing line between his evangelical cohort of followers and "liberal Christianity" is over this idea of "Biblical orthodoxy," which is of course another way of saying "Liberal Christians don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuality," a topic that occupies all of about five verses in the entire Bible. "Biblical orthodoxy" never seems to attend such [(gay)] issues as, for example, nonviolence, which was central to Jesus' teaching, or charging interest on loans (known in the Bible as usury, but known in the United States as "the engine of our economy").

But then again, evangelicals of the kind who like to be flattered by Metaxas's historical distortions aren't really all that concerned with war or economic injustice, both of which are much more central to the moral concerns of the Bible than any issues of "sexual orthodoxy." It's passing strange when your conception of what constitutes orthodoxy of any sort revolves around the isolated focus on such a minuscule aspect of the Biblical text. It's even stranger when your conception of orthodoxy focuses, not on questions of God's nature, Christ's incarnation, the nature of his sacrifice or the possibilities of salvation, but instead on one question that was culturally marginal at the time the Bible was written and has become crucial today only because a subset of the human family has decided that it would very much like to be treated as fully human thank-you-very-much. If that's orthdoxy, I'll take heresy any day of the week.

In fact, it's worth noting that, if we were looking for any group who was acting "just like" the Nazis with regard to gays and lesbians, we'd be far more likely to be successful if we looked to those conservative evangelicals who have been hard at work in Uganda over the past several years trying, ultimately successfully, to get legislation passed to declare homosexuality a crime and to put gays and lesbians in prison. These are the same brand of conservative evangelicals, it should be noted, that seem to conform to what Metaxas means by "biblical orthodoxy." So please, Eric, be careful where you are swinging your Nazi comparisons.

Of course, the whole evangelical hermeneutic could best be described as "interpreting the Bible while pretending we're not interpreting it. It would be more honest to say that conservatives of the Metaxas strain and liberals have different interpretations of the Bible, and then inquiry as to which interpretation best comports with what we can say of about God's will based on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. But that approach would lead inevitably to the conclusion that the conservative obsession with other people's sex lives is utterly ridiculous and anti-Christian, and they can't have that.

But finally, I think a word has to be said on behalf of Bonhoeffer. Insofar as Metaxas has set himself up as the go-to contemporary interpreter of Bonhoeffer, he has done a huge disservice to the complexity and ambiguity inherent in Bonhoeffer's thought. Evangelicals have an understandable attachment to earlier works like Discipleship and Life Together, while liberals are often fascinated by the fragmentary material collected in Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison. The earlier books have a strong emphasis on obedience to God and personal Christian commitment, ideas that have a strong resonance in evangelical circles, while the latter books point to the difficulties of discerning God's will in ambiguous circumstances, and imagine the possibilities of a "religionless Christianity" that approaches things from the perspective of those on the margins of society. 

The unfortunate truth is that, because he was murdered, we have no way of knowing what direction Bonhoeffer's thought might have taken after the war. It's therefore worth displaying a bit of humility in attempting to assert with confidence what Bohoeffer "really" thought near the end of his life. However, if we were looking for an interpreter on that front, Eberhard Bethge would be a far better choice than Eric Metaxas, as Bethge was the editor of Bonhoeffer's prison writings, the compiler of the Ethics, and one of Bonhoeffer's most frequent prison correspondents. Bethge himself seemed content to let Bonhoeffer's words and action speak for themselves, without filtering them through the anachronistic lenses of contemporary disputes. The truth is that there is something in Bonhoeffer for those on the political and theological left as well as those on the right. Metaxas is not totally wrong when he sees those elements in Bonhoeffer that are attractive to conservatives. But his utter dishonesty in his presentation of those issues, his shoddy scholarship, and his repulsive comparisons of liberals to Nazis should be enough to render everything else he has to say irrelevant.

So now, let us finally be done with Eric Metaxas. May I never have to hear his name or discuss his "work" ever again.

Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace - Religionless Christianity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugLAJvUCiBw#action=share



A scene from movie 'Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace' - "Lamb among wolves."
German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great pacifist theologian speaks of
a religionless Christianity centered around Jesus and the suffering of mankind.

Amazon Link

Bonhoeffer the Assassin?: Challenging The Myth.

Recovering His Call To Peacemaking by Nation.

Mark Thiessen ( 2013 ) Paperback

This careful examination questions the assumption that Bonhoeffer was involved in plots to assassinate Hitler and reveals Bonhoeffer's consistent commitment to peace.

Related Links to Mark Theissen Nation @ Relevancy22

Roger Olson - When Pacifism Meets Reality: Examining Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Hitler-Dilemma"

• “There is no evidence that Bonhoeffer was ‘involved in the plots to kill Hitler.’ Hopefully we have also shown that there is no real evidence that Bonhoeffer himself affirmed the killing of Hitler.” (p. 93).

• But, according to Bethege, there is no doubt that he believed Bonhoeffer at least tentatively gave up his pacifism in a “boundary situation,” namely, the extremity of having to end the war and the holocaust.

• Bethge clearly thought, from personal conversations with Bonhoeffer, that Bonhoeffer thought the Krisau Circle, von Moltke, and non-violent resistance to Hitler was useless.

• My conclusion is that the authors of Bonhoeffer the Assassin? (and Foreword author Hauerwas) fail to give us a strong enough statement of Bethge’s proximity to Bonhoeffer throughout the time of his involvement in the resistance against Hitler and unjustly cast doubt on his veracity about Bonhoeffer’s role in it. Anyone who reads the book must also read Bethge’s biography of Bonhoeffer, or at least the portion of it dealing with the conspiracy, and then make up their own mind. Believing Nation, et al., will require more than doubting Bethge. And if Bethge could be wrong about this, he must not [then] be considered as a "reliable" witness to the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Scot McKnight - The Continuing Debate to Bonhoeffer's German Resistance and Its Implications for Jesus' "Kingdom Ethics"

• There is tension here between his “this-worldliness” and his earlier Discipleship. That he has to say he still stands by the early work is a telling concession that emerged in his thinking as a result of his participation in the conspiracy.

• Bonhoeffer’s own journey is the struggle the church has always had with how to live out the Sermon on the Mount.

• The most important element of this scheme was that Bonhoeffer changed his mind from being a pacifist to being a (Niebuhrian) realist

• Mark Thiessen Nation, along with Anthony G. Siegrist and Daniel P. Umbel, have now published their work: Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2013). They ask if Bonhoeffer was involved in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. They conclude he was not. In part two of this review I will sketch their views and respond to their proposal.

• What this book does in the middle chapters, chapters harder to read than the others, is to demonstrate that there is a decisive break between Barcelona and Discipleship, one in which Bonhoeffer shifts from anti-pacifism to pacifism on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teachings.

• I no longer think Bonhoeffer made a tragic mistake in entering into the conspiracy and so shifted from his pacifism because I’m not convinced he entered into the conspiracy. Bonhoeffer may well have sustained his pacifism.

Scot McKnight - Review of "Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," by Charles Marsh

• Eric Metaxas (Bonhoeffer) told a different story, a more evangelical one, which is why so many evangelicals have found Bonhoeffer in the last five years. Mark Thiessen Nation provides in his study (Bonhoeffer the Assassin?) a different journey for Bonhoeffer (see reviews by Scot McKnight and Roger Olson).

Amazon Link

• But the best written description of Bonhoeffer’s journey is now byCharles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Why use the word “journey”? Because people have made meaning out of Bonhoeffer’s life and theological development according to the scheme they find in his story. The fork in the road or the place of decision is right here: When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany after that aborted visit to Union Theological Seminary in the summer of 1939, did his theology shift from a pacifist Discipleship and Life Together direction toward a more Niebuhrianrealism/responsibility vision? That is, did he enter into the Abwehr (double agent) in Hitler’s National Socialist party as one who was seeking the downfall, assassination, and replacement of Hitler, or was his life as a double agent a ruse for his continued life in the ministry of the ecumenical movement?

• ...the best way to act as a responsible Christian under Hitler was to assume the guilt of the nation and seek his country’s collapse. Maybe the best way of all to frame this is to say Bonhoeffer took leave of Discipleship by the time he was writing Ethics. That, at any rate, is the most common journey told of Bonhoeffer’s theological development. I have already covered Mark Thiessen Nation’s proposal and this post is about Marsh’s study, but it appears to me Bonhoeffer’s pacifism can remain in tact in spite of his realism since he saw entrance into the resistance as guilt (personal and national).

• Seemingly ahead of everyone else in theological circles, including Barth, Bonhoeffer saw the Jewish Question as the Christian Problem. He helped his sister and brother in law escape from Germany to England through Switzerland. They survived the war, Dietrich did not. Marsh’s Bonhoeffer is probing pluralism in affirmative terms, and Marsh is accurate.

• Marsh, in my view, downplays Discipleship and Life Together because, again in my view, he sees a different journey for Bonhoeffer: it is one that sees the highlight years in DB’s life not in the outside-the-system seminary (they weren’t underground until the end) writings and spirituality but in the more “responsible” political theology of the Ethics and his Letters and Papers from Prison. His sketches of DB’s theology after his return to Germany and while in prison were a highlight for me.

Scot McKnight - Who Owns Bonhoeffer? Or, How to Take Sides in Theological Disputes

• Will the real DB stand up? Is he a radical (anti-)Christian seeking a religionless Christianity (sic, Peter Rollins)? Is he a deeply convicted liberal advocating for social justice, Christian resistance to both the conservative church and against mainstream political fascism of Germany? Or, is he a conservative traditionalist as Metaxas advocates who left his childhood faith for another kind of Christianity altogether (noting the difference in his theologic life between his writings on Discipleship to that of Ethics)?

Scot McKnight - Taking Sides in Theological Disputes (last article in link)

• For DB, taking sides was as much about attitude as it was about correctness. He could appreciate a Rudolf Bultmann for his theologic work though differing from RB as well. But when listening to the conservative church react to RB as against theologic anti-intellectualism, Dietrich faulted the attitude of the conservative church for its failings to truly listen to the struggle of the times Rudolf was working both with and against. That this foster attitude upon the church by self-proclaimed leaders of its evangelical faith was dangerous to listen to, absorb, and act upon. - abridged: re slater

* * * * * * * * 

No, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Didn’t Try To Kill Adolf Hitler

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/no-dietrich-bonhoeffer-didnt-try-to-kill-adolph-hitler/

by Benjamin L. Corey

December 19, 2014

Comments

It seems quite often when I discuss the theology of Christian Nonviolence, some folks are quick to drop the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer for many has become a “trump card” in discussions on nonviolence when one wants to give an example of someone who used violence to confront evil, as he has the reputation of being an attempted assassin of Adolph Hitler. Unfortunately, Bonhoeffer is a poor example of the desired point as there is no evidence that was actively involved in planning or attempting to assassinate Hitler -  a basic fact accepted by the academy but seemingly missing from common internet discussions on Bonhoeffer.

To address this issue on the blog, I decided to sit down with Dr. Joseph McGarry, a Bonhoeffer scholar, and ask him to briefly explain in simple terms why thinking of Bonhoeffer as an assassin is probably not the best way to view the historical evidence.

Dr. McGarry was awarded his PhD in systematic theology from the University of Aberdeen in 2013, writing on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology of formation in Christ. His doctoral thesis has been accepted for publication by Fortress Press under the title Christ Among a Band of People: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Formation in Christ. He has been published in Theology Today, The Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care, and The Bonhoeffer Legacy: Australasian Journal of Bonhoeffer Studies. He has also contributed numerous lectures for the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Academy of Religion, and the Society for the Study of Theology. Furthermore, he is a diehard fan of the Buffalo Bills (who can’t seem to beat the New England Patriots).

---

BLC: Dr. McGarry, it seems that it is a popular assumption in today’s culture that Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian from Germany who was executed because he tried to assassinate Hitler. However, having attended several Bonhoeffer presentations by scholars at the American Academy of Religion, it seems to me that no serious Bonhoeffer scholar sees him as an assassin or even as a direct accomplice to any assassination attempt. Which version of history is correct? And, if Bonhoeffer wasn’t actually involved in an assassination attempt, where did this myth come from?

Dr. McGarry: Yeah, there’s a somewhat prevalent misnomer, and I’d imagine the myth stems from a series of logical deductions and some assumptions along the way. When people think about the Bonhoeffer’s life and involvement in the resistence, the flow of logic goes something like this:

• a) Dietrich Bonhoeffer worked for the Abwehr, and was recruited there by his brother in law, Hans von Dohnányi;

• b) Members of the Abwehr’s leadership (specifically Hans Oster, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, and Dohnányi) actively planned attempts on Hitler’s life;

• c) When the “Zossen files” were discovered in September 1944 (after the failure of the 20 July plot) von Dohnányi was clearly implicated in assassination planning, and the rest of the Abwehr by extension.

• Therefore, everyone associated with these files was executed for treason against the Reich. Generally, it is then assumed that— because Bonhoeffer was executed with these other people who actively planned Hitler’s assassination—Bonhoeffer himself was actively involved as well.

Unfortunately, it is this assumption that scholars have again and again called an overstatement of the evidence. Something closer to reality is that Bonhoeffer was (at least) one level removed from the active planning. He was part of the organization but not part of the core. He was surely knowledgeable that *something* was being planned, but he was not part of the inner circle and it is likely he didn’t know what that *something* was.

Rather, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a courier, passing messages—particularly to England through his friend Bishop George Bell—and trying to get assurances from the Allied forces that they would stop bombing Germany when Hitler’s regime was overthrown. Bonhoeffer’s job was to try to find a way to convince England to stop destroying Germany. He was a messenger, not an assassination planner. He likely provided a measure of theological justification for what others were doing (as can be seen in his Christmas 1942 letter “After 10 Years”), but he himself was—at best—a bit player in the overall scheme of things. When we think of Bonhoeffer and Hitler’s assassination, it’s probably better to think of his role as “message boy” and not “core leader”.

Now, there is a current stream of interpretation that says that Bonhoeffer had actually no knowledge whatsoever that the Abwehr leadership was planning an assassination, but this seems to me to be a bit of an overstatement from the other side.

Either way, the general consensus of scholarship is that Bonhoeffer himself was neither a core member of the resistance, nor was he central to any of the planning that the Abwer did.

---

BLC: If Bonhoeffer’s connection with the role of assassin is an overstatement of the evidence, how did we get here? Was he even focused on finding a way to destroy Hitler’s power?

Dr. McGarry: I think we get to this point from some very well intentioned people who have been truly impacted by Bonhoeffer’s amazing biography. It’s compelling, it’s dramatic. A man who forsakes all in the way he did, especially with how he returned from New York in 1939, believing that he needed to be with his nation if he were to have any right to rebuilt it…..it’s powerful stuff.

I think there’s also a tendency for us to look for heroes of the Christian faith–people who encourage us and who give us something to aspire toward. Surely Dietrich Bonhoeffer is that kind of person–a man of conviction who did what he felt was right, what was difficult, and ended up dying for how he lived his faith. I mean, let’s be honest, that was a significant factor in my own study of his work. But, in the midst of telling that type of story, there’s a temptation to overplay the hand, so to speak. It’s easy to forget that a very significant portion of his employment with the Abwehr had to do with his desire to escape the front lines. He wasn’t going to fight for the Reich. First, he tried to escape active combat by becoming a chaplain, but he was denied. His only other option would have been to come forward as a conscientious objector, but that would have earned him a one way ticket to a concentration camp. He ended up going to New York on a theological fellowship in 1939 as a way to escape, but he was overcome with guilt and returned just a few weeks later. So he returns to Germany, certain to be sent into combat, and he was trying to find a way out. And then, he found a way into the Abwehr. A way to escape the war. Though he was very sympathetic to the resistance movement, the main reason he joined the Abwehr wasn’t to be part of the resistance so much as to avoid military service (Bonhoeffer was originally imprisoned as a draft dodger, and it wasn’t until late 1944 that it was revealed that he worked in the same section of the Abwehr as those who planned the assassination plot). Though he was executed for his association with people who planned the assassination, he was put in prison for avoiding conscription.

I think that’s what often happens when we look at Bonhoeffer’s life: we focus on the stuff that shapes the heroic story of David standing up against Goliath–standing for the Gospel. And it’s not as if it’s wrong, it’s just only half of the picture. The other half (which we can’t put to the side) is the well connected pastor from a family who had political connections that could give him an exemption from combat service. It just so happened they worked for the Abwehr and that was his ticket out. If they worked as janitors in a steel factory, then he would have been doing that instead.

---

The short summary of the whole is this: Bonhoeffer did not want to die in a concentration camp, and he didn’t want to be sent off to fight either. Thus, he used family connections to find a way out of both scenarios: joining the Abwehr. While he was there, some members of the Abwehr did plan an overthrow of Hitler, but the evidence shows Bonhoeffer was at least one step removed from the circle of people who did that. However, because he was likely aware that *something* was being discussed (without knowing what that was), he did use personal friendships to ask the Allies to stop bombing and killing his family and friends (an attempt at peacemaking, not violence) which they declined. In the end, he was executed not because he was part of an assassination attempt, but simply because he was associated with people who were.

Bonhoeffer is one of my favorite people in history, as perhaps he is yours. However, to claim that he was a would-be assassin, is simply an overstatement of the historical facts.

For further reading on this topic, I recommend: Bonhoeffer The Assassin? Challenging The Myth, Recovering His Call To Peacemaking.

Pentatonix's Lindsey Stirling Rejoices in the Lord playing "Hallelujah" & "Shatter Me"

God's Season of Advent has become His Resurrection Song. A poetry that the very elements of the Eucharist speaks to through serving and loving one another rather than using or harming one another. String violinist and performer Lindsey Stirling speaks to this divine melody she hears within her soul when proclaiming Jesus as her Savior and benevolent Lord come to shatter us into His resurrection song. Hallelujah! Christ is King!

Peace.

R.E. Slater

December 17, 2015

Related links - Pentatonix - Medleys of Christmas

* * * * * * * * * * *

Hallelujah- Lindsey Stirling- #aSaviorIsBorn

Website - http://www.lindseystirling.com/home/

FaceBook - https://www.facebook.com/lindseystirlingmusic

Published on Dec 7, 2015
Merry Christmas Stirlingites!

Please watch this video that shares the Christmas story:
https://www.mormon.org/christmas?cid=...

Buy this song on
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hal...
Google Play: http://bit.ly/LShallelujah
Amazon: http://bit.ly/AMZhallelujah

* * * * * * * * * * *

Wikipedia Bio - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Stirling

Lindsey Stirling (born September 21, 1986) is an American violinist, dancer, performance artist, singer and composer. She presents choreographed violin performances, both live and in music videos found on her YouTube channel, Lindsey Stirling, which she introduced in 2007.

Stirling performs a variety of music styles, from classical to pop and rock to electronic dance music. Aside from original work, her discography contains covers of songs by other musicians and various soundtracks. Her music video, "Crystallize" finished as the eighth-most watched video of 2012, and her cover version of Radioactive with Pentatonix won Response of the Year in the first YouTube Music Awards in 2013. Stirling achieved one million singles sold worldwide by August of 2014. As of April 2015, her LindseystompYouTube channel exceeded 7 million subscribers and over a billion total views.

Stirling has been named in Forbes magazine's, 30 Under 30 In Music: The Class Of 2015. Forbes notes her quarter-finalist position on America's Got Talent season five in 2010, a No. 2 position on the Billboard 200 for her second album Shatter Me in 2014, and her 7 million subscribers on YouTube.

Stirling's eponymous debut album was a commercial success in Europe, selling 200,000 copies in Germany, winning a platinum certification; three additional certifications were given by Austria, Switzerland and Poland. The debut album was nominated for the 2014 Billboard Music Awards for Top Dance/Electronic Albums. Stirling's second album Shatter Mewon the 2015 Billboard Music Awards for Top Dance/Electronic Album.

Shatter Me Featuring Lzzy Hale - Lindsey Stirling

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]