Christian Supremacy and Dominionism?

[BeHereNow]

Are the terms Christian Supremacy and dominionism valid terms, describing the beliefs of certain Christians?

Do any Christians admit to advocating either one of these?

[Solon]

Well those terms are usually used by opponents in a pejorative sense. I'd say there are Christians who might advocate some or all of the points in either of those, but they would use a different name. Dominionism would correspond to a moral values movement. It's basically labeling people who want to base the laws of the land off of the moral teachings of the Bible. Again with Christian Supremacy, there may be folks who feel that CHristians should lead the world and shepard the masses into moral thought and action, they're not likely to refer to themselves as a Supremacy movement though, that has too many negative connotations.


There's obviously PR folks spinning for both sides of every issue that have favorable terms they use. Look at the Brights movement, they chose a positive word that insinuates that their opponents are not Bright. Moral Majority? Same there. Pro-Life of course makes their opponents Anti-Life or murderers, Pro-Choice makes their opponents Anti-Choice fascists.

[McCulloch]

While most who consider themselves Evangelical oppose theocracy, many conservative Evangelicals, among them Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, have asserted that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in American public life according its importance in American life and history.
[...]
Self-identified Christian supremacists and groups

• Roy Moore

People and groups sometimes identified as Christian supremacists

• Focus on the Family
• James Dobson
• Jerry Falwell
• Pat Robertson
• Bob Jones III

You mean like these?

[BeHereNow]

Yes.

Why is it (former) Judge Moore is willing to self identify, but not the others?

Are there any other terms those who self identify use?

Here is a quote f D James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Gospel) made at "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" in 2005:

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

It seems to me this is dominion/supremacy terminology, yet he and his followers say it is not.

[micatala]

Why is it (former) Judge Moore is willing to self identify, but not the others?

Because they know identifying as 'dominionists' will be politically unpalatable? Perhaps because they don't want their opponents defining them?

Whatever it is called, it seems to me this movement should be opposed. I am absolutely not against people of any religion participating in politics, and promoting views informed by their beliefs. However, no religion or religious group should have a privileged place.

I would also suggest that 'dominionism' runs counter to several Biblical teachings. I don't see that the New Testament endorses the idea of believers having license to exercises political control over non-believers simply because they are believers. Jesus pointedly seemed to avoid any hint of exercising political control.

He sought to persuade, rather than control. I think ultimately this is a more fruitful strategy, and would suggest today's conservative politically active Christians consider His lesson.

[BeHereNow]

micatala

I see it as you do.

Others would disagree.