Dominionist or Christian?

[Dave Roberts]

After reading the defenses of Donald Trump by Robert Jeffress, Franklin Graham, and Jerry Falwell, Jr., I am convinced that those three have a great deal more in common in their reasoning with Rushdoony and North"s Dominionist theology than with Jesus. The justification for continuing support seems to hinge on Christian occupation of the culture much like an alien force. Their concerns seem centered on "keeping the court" or being sure that "progressive forces cannot continue to destroy our Christian hegemony over culture. I can't recall Jesus being mentioned by any of them and certainly not the Lord's teachings. Do you hear the same trends?

[Sandy]

Agree. Essentially, to use an OT example, they are "selling their birthright" in their faith in Jesus for a bowl of soup, which is the very outside and remote chance that their candidate will appoint 2-3 Supreme Court justices who will tip the balance of the court in the way they think it should go. They are relying on the human institution of government, in exchange for the spiritual kingdom.

There's probably zero chance that Trump's court appointees would represent anything close to what these guys think they will get, so is it worth the almost certain perception among those who see this for what it is that these guys are spiritually bankrupt? And it's too late for them to turn back now. Others, mostly non-Christians or those in the center-to-left of the American church, will be seen as the prophetic voices.

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

Sadly, I'm hearing a number of laypeople who seem taken in by certain prominent preachers as justification for support for Trump.

[William Thornton]

I don't think any of those guys are deep in the dominionist stuff.

[KeithE]

Interesting but it is too late to google up and read the Big 3’s defenses of Trump or read enough of Rushdoony/North to comment seriously (although I own The Institutes of Biblical Law) and my sister’s late husband barraged me with much of Rushdoony’s thoughts).

Listening to Gary Bauer tonight showed just how untenable any connection between Trump mob-ism and Christianity (in any form) is.

[Dave Roberts]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

[Haruo]

Both right. They're accidental dominionists (and not very good at it) because their hatred of Hillary outweighs their sub-Christian level of love of the foreigner. Be interesting to know, if Billy had somehow managed to maintain his vigor and mental function to the present day, whether he would follow his son on this or whether he might even have managed to turn his son around, or whether he would be maintaining a rigid neutrality so as to be welcome in the Oval Office whichever candidate wins.

Frank Schaeffer had a strong statement on the subject of Christian support for Trump on Facebook yesterday, unfortunately couched in terms that preclude playing it in church.

[Sandy]

[Shawn Koester]

[Jim]

This thread has been a fun-read, juxtaposing dominionism (whatever that is) with proper Christianism as if both (whatever they are) cannot coexist.  The usual castigation of Billy Graham (jealousy is such a motivator) and those of his alleged ilk who have publicly supported Trump is a delicious exercise for the self-righteous and theologically correct.  Graham was such a lightweight, after all, and Trump is a master at sin.  The statement that millennials are deserting the church because of its hypocrisy was interesting, though the reasoning was screwball, i.e., that the evangelical church is mistakenly attempting to impose itself upon the culture, which, of course, is what Christ said it should do – that salt and light thing.  Albert Mohler is on the record in my newspaper today as admonishing the fellow evangelicals for their support of Trump and plans to vote write-in.  He has a point, though hardly an actual vote.  Notice has been taken in the thread about the diminishment of church membership, greatly accelerated during the last seven-eight years.  The reason has nothing to do with dominionism/Christianism or lack thereof but with its falling away from Christ’s pattern.  It’s not too far a stretch to claim that the new bible for especially the mainliners is Plato’s Symposium, a treatise from the great Greek on the subject of love.  I just re-read it (or most of it to get the picture) and highly recommend it.  I even versified about it (attached), though the university profs would call it doggerel.
 

[Haruo]

Jim, I was still in grade school when my father clued me in on the impossibility of talking about "love" in Greek. He explained about ἀγάπη agápē, ἔρως érōs, and φιλία philía. I don't think he mentioned στοργή storgē, but he did make it clear to me that if you see the word "love" in a work originally written in Greek, you need to ask immediately what Greek word it translates. So... what word or words did Plato use there?

[Jim]

I haven't the slightest idea, just depended on the translations I've read, which at least agree with each other. In other words, using the same approach as with reading the translations of the Bible – depend on the translators, which may or may not be a good idea, though finding not a great deal of discrepancy among them. I do consult a Greek translation of the NT occasionally but am anything but a scholar in any field you can name. We have perhaps different understandings of Symposium, so we probably disagree, amicably, of course. I've heard countless sermons on the different meanings of the Greek words for love so just take stock of my thoughts and go from there. My understanding is that the relationships of Muslim fathers with their sons (actually incest and probably a genuine beating on occasion) sort of compares with Symposium, sans the beatings, but who knows?

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

Jim, just a FYI, the movement within United Methodists to welcome LGBTQ people into the UMC is often called "Biblical Obedience" as opposed to obeying the current UMC Discipline. Those of us who believe the scriptures when it says that "God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." And also that the Bible says that God is LOVE and in him there is no darkness, see the LOVE of God as the major theme of the Bible. I don't know what you are getting out of the Bible. But the Bible is much more about God's love than Plato.

[Jim]

I did not misrepresent Symposium, merely acknowledged its theme and offered no interpretation of what Plato meant, which was, in any case, quite obvious. The attachment had to do with what a young person might think as opposed to an idiot professor. If that was interpretation, so be it. I don't know if you're in the “Biblical Obedience” movement or that of church discipline, not that it matters to me although it might matter to you down the road since you're heavily invested in not a movement but a denomination for all practical purposes administered by a small handful of folks, who might decide what you can and cannot do. I disagree with your homily on the main theme of the Bible, which is the redemption of man and God's provision for the reconciliation of man with God. Love may be part of God's incentive as developed through the scriptures from strict disciplinarian to self-sacrificing winner of the scriptural medal of honor, with the mortally wounded soul (man) given back his life.

[Dave Roberts]

Jim, I once had a very wise man explain something to me. He said that we are all like the old mules that plowed. The mules wore blinders so they could not be distracted by anything to the side. He said that the purpose of an education is to be able to recognize our blinders and know they are there and what they are. Evidently, you are content with yours.

[Jim]

[Dave Roberts]

[Jim]

[Jim]

The delicious irony is now unfolding vis-a-vis the unrelenting ridicule in this forum of the SBC “fundamentalist takeover,” featuring its lack of sensitivity for most everything and its non-use of LOVE with respect to specific groups, as well as (gasp) women, who nevertheless have been satisfied enough to stay the course. The SBC's numbers, while slightly falling, as is the case with most denominations, have remained fairly stable, while the “mainline” denominations are dying on the vine. While actual conservatives (not fundamentalists) have worked their will in the SBC, resulting in a number of disgruntled split-groups (mine among them), the elite, self-appointed spiritual intellectuals (denominational pooh-bahs and a multitude of pastors) have driven the mainliners into creedal chaos and confiscated the properties of individual churches (think Episcopalian, for instance) that are the result of blood, sweat and tears of their congregants, the actual owners, who have been willingly expelled. This is the result of liberal theology, a euphemism for the “anything goes” concept having as its god political correctness and its aim the greatest effort possible to reflect, not affect, the culture. The term LOVE is the constant mantra, with notice not taken of the fact that Jesus physically thrashed people in the temple and told his disciples to get swords even if having to sell clothing to do so. He called HIS church leaders rotten tombs, their minds stinking bastions of nothingness. I did not bring up the LGBTQ term in this thread, but a mod-lib did. This group is practically worshiped now, a sure sign of the decadence that will **** the nation absent an enormous revival. Ministers of conscience are now faced with having to spit in God's face and perform weddings of two men, sanctioning behavior condemned biblically as unnatural, certainly not sexual unless one considers anal/oral sex as God's plan for procreation. Is it too big a stretch to simply encourage practicing members of the LGBTQ gang, as well as practicing adulterers, to form their own churches rather than contaminate those attempting to please God? In other words, TOUGH LOVE, that of Christ. The danger of dominionism has little to do with the Grahams but with the arrogant denominational hierarchies leading the nation to oblivion, Plato-style.

[William Thornton]

I'm rather enjoying this thread, no matter that there isn't much dominionist stuff in the SBC these days.

[Dave Roberts]