|
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Alan Wolfe, writing in The New York Times, stated: "FitzGerald includes a fascinating chapter on conservative Christian intellectuals. One of them, R.J. Rushdoony, developed a complicated theological system he called Christian Reconstructionism; he taught that "with God on their side, Christians had no need for majoritarian politics, or for compromise and accommodation to reach their goal," as FitzGerald puts it." "...is wary after learning that FitzGerald pays so much attention to figures like Rousas Rushdoony. His idiosyncratic theocracy scheme frightens the journalism natives, but is hardly representative of mainstream evangelicalism, or even of its most politicized segments." This claim epitomizes one of the techniques of dominionism denial. The use of the strawman argument: Rebutting assertions that no one has actually made. Ostling claims that Rushdoony is "hardly representative of mainstream evangelicalism." Well indeed! Rushdoony, Gary North and the other leading thinkers of Christian Reconstructionism have long understood that their theocratic vision is profoundly radical, certainly revolutionary, and in no way representative of mainstream evangelicalism. In fact, they would argue that mainstream evangelicalism is part of the problem: Insufficiently Christian at best, and come the theocracy, some mainstreamers might find themselves in the stoning circle following a conviction for heresy or apostasy. Any fair minded person who has actually read Rushdoony and North et al, knows this. In all my years of writing about this subject, I cannot recall anyone who has ever claimed that Rushdoony and his colleagues are "representative of mainstream evangelicalism" (although I suppose there may have been some silly people who did.) In any case, there is no indication that Frances FitzGerald has done so. But Ostling has not actually read the book. So how would he know?) The Christian Reconstructionists are significant not because they are representative -- but because they are not. The task of any serious outside observer who is not just out to score cheap political points or engage in defensive PR tactics, is to gauge not whether the Reconstructionists are representative, but to discern the nature and extent of their influence. This is no easy task, regardless of one's religious or political views, journalistic skills, or academic credentials. Many who have studied the matter understand that Christian Reconstructionism and the broader dominionist movement have been essential to the development of the political movement we generally call the Christian Right. And the significance of the reality of this can hardly be overstated. I am looking forward to seeing how FitzGerald handles it. A remarkable aspect of the story of theocratic dominionism has been the denialism that the existence and significance of this movement brings out in people. (`It can't happen here', some seem to think.) The leaders of theocratic dominionism generally take a very long view of politics and the gradual implementation of their ideas, and therefore have sought to keep their activities on the low down, so as to avoid being crushed by the rest of society-- lest they grasp what the theorists of dominionism have in mind. This has mostly worked, thanks in considerable part to the complicity, (both witting and unwitting), of the denialists.
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial | 101 comments (101 topical, 0 hidden)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial | 101 comments (101 topical, 0 hidden)
|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
print page
