I was accused last night at a favorite watering hole of being a ‘Christian Dominionist’ because I asserted that society is better if Christian principles were the foundation of social norms and law. I had heard of this phrase before but had never really bothered to dig into it until now.
It seems that few if any people claim to be a leader in Dominion Theology, but instead it is a label used to justify the shunning of Christians like me who think a Christian society is a good thing.
"Those labeled dominionists rarely use the terms “dominionist” and “dominionism” for self-description, and some people have attacked the use of such words. Journalist Anthony Williams charged that such usage aims “to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned”. Journalist Stanley Kurtz labeled it “conspiratorial nonsense”, “political paranoia”, and “guilt by association”, and decried Hedges’ “vague characterizations” that allow him to “paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless ‘Dominionist’ Christian mass”. 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.
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.
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.
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. Its strangeness scares people. Without history or context, the word creates a siege mentality in which ‘we’ need to guard against ‘them’.” 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.”
So in view of all this, I began to wonder what the Catholic church teaches on the subject. I know the church has denounced ‘Triumphalism’ but I never understood how this is consistent with earlier ages of Church sanctioned monarchies and political movements.