Talk:Dominion Theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Calvinism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV comment[edit]

It is good to mention (as the article in its current form does) that this is not a mainstream viewpoint in the evangelical Christian community, it part due to its extremely radical nature, and it part due to strong theological differences with mainstream evangelicalism. Perhaps the article should note that many U.S. political conservatives do not endorse or agree with this movement, seeing it as radical, not conservative, in that it seeks to expand the pervasiveness of government and is not based on the idea of a political system founded on the Constitution of the United States. This article still strikes me as being an attempt to "expose", rather than to "explain", this theology, and it still needs some rewriting, but I will defer putting it on cleanup for now. Rlquall 01:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" is applied primarily among non-mainstream Protestants" is vague, and far too easily infers that the groups labeled by this, are accepting to it. Hence, I'm going to drop 'among' for a clearer 'to.' Nothing in the article supports that the groups so labeled consider either the theory itself, or the name, as valid, so clarification is worthwhile. (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Having attempted once to clarify, this label is EXTERNALLY FORMED. It was never sourced FROM the movement, or if it was, it has never been shown. This whole article is a SOCIOLOGICAL LABELING of a similar set of beliefs. It is both insulting to supposed practitioners, and more importantly to future scholars, to not clarify that this label is not internal. I am once again rewriting the intro to clarify this. (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the label is not used by those to whom it applies. With regard to the mainstream Christian right being called "dominionist," this is clearly stated at the end of the Intro. With regard to Christian Reconstructionism, it is stated in its own article but maybe not so clearly here. It's not entirely clear to me which aspect you are talking only about. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is "among" being returned to the langauge in the intro? It implies internal, and this is an external. I will again change to the external "to". (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "mainstream" is POV, and unsourced. I will remove that from the intro. (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Why I rewrote this page[edit]

I am a critic of Dominionism, but this page was way over the top in terms of violating NPOV. Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are not the same thing. A subset chart would look like this:

Dominion Theology
Christian Reconstructionism

The specific meanings are different in important ways. Some national Republican political figures are Dominionist, but few are believers in Dominion Theology, and I can't think of any who are actually Christian Reconstructionist, although it is possible one or two are. --Cberlet 15:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although these terms are descriptive enough, I'm not sure they really identify subsets. As we've worked through some of the issues on the Dominionism page, for example, we've done so in terms of the "theology" of so-called Dominionists. I would think this page would provide more detail about the theology of dominion, rather than try to distinguish "Dominionism" from "Dominion Theology". Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that a lot of critics make no distinction between generic "soft" Dominionism and the harder forms of Dominion Theology of which Christian Reconstructionism is but one example. Also, some critics have written that Christian Reconstructionism is the same thing as Dominion Theology, or even claimed that Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, and Dominionism are all ways to describe Christian Reconstructionism. So this page serves as an educational placekeeper to help folks sort this out in a more accurate way. Understand that I am a critic of Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, and Dominionism, but I think it is important to recognize that when Diamond and Clarkson and others write about these tendencies, they are making distinctions that get lost if the terms are used as synonymns.--Cberlet 20:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, that distinctions are important. The problem is that, these terms are creating artificial distinctions (apparently for academic purposes), that are not meaningful inside of the debate. Moreover, it seems that the actual "theology" of Dominion theology, is not of interest.
Within my circles, for example, which might be called the birthplace of Christian Reconstructionism, there is a variety of theological perspectives concerning how a Christian should conduct himself in the public sphere - ranging from withdrawal, to immersion. Within that theological arena, "Dominionism" and "Dominion theology" are precisely the same thing, and describe fairly narrowly one of the theological and intellectual influences of Christian Reconstructionism. But, behind it, is an idea that's borrowed from continental Reformed theology, especially what is called the "reformational", or "calvinian" movement. Abraham Kuyper, the chief articulator of that perspective, expressed its main principle in this confessional form: there is not a thumb-breadth of the universe about which Christ does not say, "It is mine" If you put that phrase in the mouth of a "reformational" Christian, it means something sharply at odds with what it means in the mouth of a Reconstructionist. The difference between these two ideas (which are based on identical interpretations of Genesis 1:26-28, by the way) is a difference in their theology of stewardship (dominion). Both understand the dominion mandate to be applicable to all of life (not just to taking care of animals). But Kuyper's approach led to pluralism, Rushdoony led the way to Theonomy: opposite ends of a political spectrum. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Furthermore, there are other theological sources behind these two schools of thought, which branch out in further diversity, which is very wide indeed. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Now, to me, it would seem that an article entitled "Dominion theology" should have some reference to the original context in which these terms originated. Strangely, it does not; and, after all, even if it did, it really can't be discussed here, anyway. Wikipedia is not a theological journal. Where does that leave me? It leaves me in the position of trying to contribute to a outsider's view from the outside, when I could contribute an insider's view, but it doesn't seem relevant. Very odd position to be in. I hope that you can sympathize. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What do you think about the change to the introduction? I'm not entirely happy with how relative it renders the term, but I'm at a loss for how else to approach this. If the quoted writers are actually dictating how the terminology is being used, and especially if their work has become influential, and they are the creators of the categories (like "Hard", "Soft", "Dominionist vs Dominion Theology", etc.), then it seems that there is no choice but to constrain the article to the terms as they use them. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To a sociologist, what matters is when a group of people become a collective self-aware movement. To a sociologist of religion, there is a difference between a theological debate, and the development of a group of people who have embraced a particular theological sect. But in part, this page exists to make people pay attention to some distinctions that are relatively opaque to folks not conversant in theological debates. All over the internet are claims that go like this:
The Christian Right is Dominionist, and Dominionism is the same thing as Dominion Theology, and Dominon Theology is the same thing as Christian Reconstructionism, and Christian Reconstructionism is the same thing as theocratic neofascism, and since theocratic neofascism is just a fancy word for a type of fascism...therefore the Christian Right is fascist.
So this page exists to help folks sort out why that type of thinking is simply invalid logically and in terms of analytical content.--Cberlet 16:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dropped History, as it was totally unsourced. There seems to be some history of articles in the text, mostly revolving around Diamond. I also attempted to further clean up. (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The History section is a brief summary of material in the Christian Reconstructionism page. Sources are easy to find there, if you want to transfer them. Please do not delete that content. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nested chart[edit]

Reconstructionists call themselves theonomic, so I swapped them in the chart. Restored Triumphalism as well. Helps reader see the flow. --Cberlet 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The paragraph on Kinism is un-sourced, and inaccurate. Kinism can hardly be called a "movement" - though its proponents want it to become one, as there are less than ten people known to have publicly embraced the tenets of "Kinism" when they signed a statement written by Stan Poston - who coined the term and is the father/author of the ideology.

Poston, a graduate of Virginia Military Institute, and at that time a federal agent, coined the idea of Kinism in 1999, and got a few people to sign his founding statement. Poston was Anglican at the time - a denomination not normally associated with Dominionist ideaology. Poston was a member of the Virginia chapter of the League of the South. In 2000 he introduced his idea to the state leadership of the League of the South. Kinism was rejected by the leadership and members of the Virginia League of the South, which led to Poston and the other members who endorsed Kinism being asked to leave the organization - which they did.

Poston retired from federal law enforcement and moved to Tennessee shortly thereafter, and as of 2008 has not done any more to publicly promote Kinism, though he still believes it.

Harry Seabrook was the author of the website which started out as a Christian Reconstructionist website in the 1990's. After the turn of the millennium Seabrook started moving toward racism and adopted "Kinism" from Poston, making it his flagship idea. During his ideaological transition, Seabrook posted a mix of both ideas on his website - dominionism and kinism. However, other Dominionists rejected Seabrook. R.C. Sproul Jr, wrote an open letter in his newsletter, "Every Thought Captive", denouncing Seabrook and Kinism as incompatible with the Gospel. Consequently, Seabrook alienated himself from the Dominionist movement and the Reformed churches in his area.

Seabrook was a notable failure in his attempt to popularize the mixing of Kinism and Dominionist ideas, primarily because the two ideas are antithetical to each other.

In 2007 Seabrook shut the Little Geneva website down for fear that his employer might find out about his open promotion of white supremacy. Shortly thereafter the site was put back online using the new name "" and registered in the name of Randall Jamison, another Virginia Kinist, and former chairman of the Virginia chapter of the League of the South. The new site has the same header shots of Andrew Jackson, Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, R.L. Dabney, Cornelius Van Til, and Rousas Rushdooney as the Little Geneva website - and in the same order - suggesting to those familiar with Little Geneva that this is the same website under a new name.

Kinism does not have a strong intellectual backing, unlike the Reconstructionist movement, and does not flow from Reconstructionist thought. It is merely a repainting of age-old racist ideas with a new label.

The information presented here is undoubtedly "original research". The point is that Kinism is merely an idea that was aired on the internet by a handfull of people. It is not a movement, and is not endorsed by any churches in the "Dominionist" genre. The known adherents of Kinism could be counted on one's fingers. There is no organization.

Someone could write an entry on Kinism but it does not belong in this section. Cadwallader (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Specific note on Assembly of God's position out of place?[edit]

Seems like this mention doesn't really fit in with the overall narrative on this item. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by THX1136 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RS for the distinction between this and Dominionism[edit]

I'm having a hard time finding a distinction between Dominion Theology and Dominionism in any of the sources here. Anyone want to help me out before I start a merge discussion? --JFH (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
merge Dominionism to Dominion Theology, as described by BlueMoonlet --JFH (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been unable to find a source for the claim that Dominion Theology exclusively refers to these two movements. I've seen some folks use it just for CR, some for Kingdom Now, and some for dominionism, which also has a range of meaning. DT and dominionism are frequently used interchangeably, and I have yet to see someone make the kind of distinction we have here. DT should probably redirect to Dominionism, with hatnotes or a DAB page to explain that both DT and dominionism are frequently used to specifically refer to smaller movements. --JFH (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that, if merged, this article should redirect to Christian Reconstructionism. I've never seen the term "Dominion Theology" actually used to refer to anything other than CR. Counterexamples would be welcome. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Page 246 of Roads to Dominion has a section on "Dominion Theology" which "took a number of forms". "Reconstructionism was the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, form of dominion theology."
  • C. Peter Wagner, a pentecostal, uses dominion theology for his own position in On Earth As it is in Heaven and Dominion!: How Kingdom Action Can Change the World, consistently with the definition I've been using for dominionism
  • Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Mark Juergensmeyer) uses "Dominion Theology" on page 27 for the position of Falwell and Robertson and calls "Reconstruction Theology" "the extreme right wing of Dominion Theology".
  • Radical Islam in the West: Ideology and Challenge says pretty much the same thing on page 21.
These last four sources were found on the first couple pages of a Google book search. --JFH (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as splitting Kingdom Now theology into a separate article, I don't think it will have legs. The article was deleted five years ago, and I have considered re-creating it, but I haven't been able to find the sources. See User:StAnselm/Kingdom Now theology for my modification of an earlier version of the article. 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem merging it to dominionism if it is considered part of that. --JFH (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you've convinced me that we need an article on Dominion Theology, because there are radicals who argue theologically for a Christian-controlled society who are not Reconstructionists (not Calvinist etc.) and not Theonomists (not insisting on Mosaic Law). The conversation now shifts to whether this page should be merged into Dominionism (as you suggest) or whether Dominionism should be merged into this page and Christian right (as I would prefer).
Of your sources, Diamond is the one who started the whole debate, and it should be abundantly clear that her views are not generally accepted as consensus. Wagner is a partisan, a founder of the New Apostolic Reformation that is itself a Dominion Theology group. Juergensmeyer is a serious scholar, and it may be worth mentioning his support of the idea that Falwell and Robertson subscribe to DT. However, he gives no support for the contention, using it basically to get the reader's attention and then immediately moving on to the actual topic of his book (and of his expertise): radicals such as Terry, Hill, and Rushdoony. Finally, Brian Farmer (Radical Islam in the West) is simply following Juergensmeyer, repeating him almost verbatim and citing him in a footnote.
So I don't think you have shown any consensus among scholars that the mainstream Christian right can reasonably be called "Dominionist". Plenty of people disagree with what Juergensmeyer wrote, and the overall silence from scholars on the topic shows that most do not find it a useful topic of conversation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the mainstream Christian Right is dominionist. But the concept is obviously notable and can't be treated well at Christian Right. There is no consensus distinction between DT and dominionism so they should be merged. --JFH (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we've come to an agreement that the two pages should be merged, and we're now discussing which page to keep and how to distribute things. I am now suggesting that Dominionism be merged into Dominion Theology, with the following specifics:
For posterity, the current versions of the three articles I'm discussing are here: [1] [2] [3]. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the main advantage to structuring the articles in this way is that all article subjects would be things that are generally agreed to exist, thus removing the word "alleged" that has bothered some people. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Systemic bias[edit]

If this particular subject is something restricted to the United States then it should say that. If not there is clearly an important systemic bias problem due to this sentence at the intro that says "Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law." If this is only a development within the United states then it should say something along the lines of "Dominionism is an idea that exists within United States protestant christianity......". And i bring to consideration also the issue of "protestant christianity" since this does not seem to exist as far as other christian forms within the US such as catholicism or eartern orthodox churches.--Eduen (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether similar movements exist in other countries or other branches of Christianity is beyond my pay grade. And I don't think we need to answer that question because this particular name has, to my knowledge, only been applied to U.S. Protestants. I made this edit to clarify the point, and I hope you'll agree that this addresses your concern. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

How big/influential is this?[edit]

How many people actually believe in Dominion theology? I came to this article trying to figure out if this is a tempest in a teapot or something real. The links I've found seem to be very vague which makes me suspect that this isn't very significant. TMLutas (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a fringe movement that has wider influence, which makes it difficult to characterize. Maybe it's a tempest in a teapot, but occasionally something real spills out. This theology has definitely played a role in shaping the politics of the Tea Party movement and Republican politics generally in the US. -Sigeng (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The Tea Party Movement rejects anything like this. The Tea Party Movement was mainly a product of the Ron Paul campaign of 2008 and a number of protests regarding taxes and Obamacare. Maybe you should do your homework instead of listening to ad hominem attacks by morons on TV. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sources: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Sigeng (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dominion Theology and Dominionism[edit]

The creation of the term "Dominionism" was to make a distinction between the broader movement in the US Christian Right and the more hardcore Calvinist elements in Christian Reconstructionism and Kingdom Now. This merged page dismisses the arguments in a number of books, scholarly journal articles, and scores of news and magazine articles in print and online. See, for example, this: How We Coined the Term "Dominionism" the contribution of one Wikipedia editor should not have resulted in this merger. Let's talk about this.Chip.berlet (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Scholar shows numerous cites to sources that make this distinction: See Here Chip.berlet (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sara Diamond is a source:

Diamond, who would earn her PhD for her dissertation on right-wing social movements in the United States, explained 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." (Spiritual Warfare, p. 138, italics in the original).

Chip.berlet (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of the relationship among Christian Reconstructionism and broader Christian movements as "dominionist" is in Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective, edited by Bronislaw Misztal and Anson D. Shupe. Chip.berlet (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigeng above has posted sources that have been ignored... [8] [9] [10] [11]. Sigeng via Chip.berlet (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you're an actual investigative journalist. That's awesome. Thanks for being one. The world needs more of you.
To be clear, are you recommending that we reverse the merger and break out Dominionism as a separate topic? Or do you think that the article should remain merged but do a better job of making the distinction between the terms?
I gave those sources to make the point about the impact of Dominionism/Dominion Theology on US politics, but I think you're right that they could probably be cited and that the article needs to do more to explain the relevance of the topic. Christian Reconstructionism I think does a better job of making those connections.
If you have some specific changes to recommend I'd be happy to help. I don't think I have time right now to write new content for this article, however.
-Sigeng (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sigeng! I think for now cleaning up the confusion over the term itself is the primary activity. It appears that the earlier merger discussion was primarily between two individuals, and there were few references to published material in that discussion. I think the merger was not useful, but I hope to add references to the broad use of the term first, and then engage in a discussion of breaking out the term "Dominionism" which is widely used (and misused) in the mainstream media. There are many newer cites in scholarly and popular publications.Chip.berlet (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
See, for example, this material from a Christian Ministry: (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Berlet. I hope you've been well.

As I said at the end of the merger discussion, the pages are now structured such that all article subjects are things that are generally agreed to exist. I think that's very helpful as we endeavor to write a NPOV encyclopedia.

You say: "The creation of the term "Dominionism" was to make a distinction between the broader movement in the US Christian Right and the more hardcore Calvinist elements". I disagree. That distinction already existed, and the term "Dominionism" was created to blur it by labeling the broader movement with a name derived from the hardcore elements.

A large part of our disagreement, I think, is whether the term "dominionism" has enough reality that Wikipedia should use it in its own voice. I think the article as it stood until your recent changes (for posterity: [12]) did a reasonable job of discussing the conversation that has taken place about the term. It seems to me that what you want to do is to have Wikipedia use the term as if its advocates have carried the day in that conversation. I think scholarly sources should be given particular attention as we address that question, and I have not seen a compelling case.

If there are new scholarly sources that merit discussion in the article, then by all means let's discuss them. However, I can't say I'm impressed so far. Your source is not scholarly, nor are any of Sigeng's sources. The Google Scholar search is headlined by yourself and your longtime colleagues. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, What are the sources for the opinions and use of loaded language in this paragraph:
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.
Looking forward to the cites.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could clarify your concerns by stating exactly what you think is questionable in that paragraph. Because the lead section summarizes the main text, which itself should be (and is) heavily cited, the lead section itself need not be as heavily cited. Per that policy, statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged" need a citation. Thus, for those passages that you think need to be challenged, please clarify the nature of your challenge.
Just to move the conversation along, here is my view of the words you've highlighted:
  • "Some": All that's necessary to support this word is to show that there are people in the Christian right that have been influenced by Dominion Theology. I think that is clearly in the article and I can't imagine anyone saying otherwise. If your objection is that it's "some" and not "all," then the burden of proof would be on you to show that every single Christian conservative is a follower of Rushdoony or some such. I can't imagine anyone saying that that is so.
  • "Mainstream": We're talking about the Christian right as a broad movement, no? That seems a broad enough current within American discourse to speak of a mainstream within it, with extremists and moderates on either side. Are you saying that every single Christian conservative is an extremist, and thus that there is no such thing as a mainstream Christian right? That would seem a remarkable claim.
  • "Implicitly arguing that": As I said in my previous post, using the word "dominionist" (which previously existed as a referent to Dominion Theology) to refer to the mainstream Christian right is to implicitly argue that the mainstream Christian right is derived from Dominion Theology. This doesn't seem controversial to me, and some of the sources in the "Criticism of the usage" section say as much, so a citation can be added if you think it's needed.
  • "Theology": Dominion Theology is a theology. Again, I don't see the problem here.
  • "Usage has sparked considerable controversy": We have a whole section giving references for this. I can't imagine that stating the existence of controversy is itself controversial.
Please understand that I am not trying to put words into your mouth in any way, Mr. Berlet. I am guessing at what might be on your mind and trying to move the conversation along. If I have guessed wrongly, then please clarify your meaning and I hope we can proceed without offense. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
My main problem is that when you edit the page and choose wording and location, you, inadvertently or not, reinforce the claims that the movement and term "dominionism" should only be used to describe "Dominion Theology" and not the broader influence on the Christian Right--which is how the term is increasingly used in public discussions in the media. That is exactly the outcome of your burying the quotes by Posner and Misztal and Shupe. Let's start by both reading the full Posner article and then discussing whether moving her quote was appropriate or reflects a personal opinion that has the outcome of biasing the article by changing the context of what Posner wrote.Chip.berlet (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Using the term "dominionism" to refer to Dominion Theology has broad scholarly support. Using it to refer to the broader Christian right does not.
I am aware that the latter usage does appear "in public discussions in the media," most often in media outlets (or at least in articles) that are strongly partisan in opposition to the Christian right. Wikipedia should not engage in such rhetoric. Report on it, yes.
As for moving the quotes, you put them at the beginning of sections that already had introductory paragraphs. The quotes did not orient the reader towards understanding the rest of the section. They are better placed after appropriate context has been given.
I have fully read the 2011 Posner article. It is highly partisan journalism, not at all scholarly. Do you deny it? The style seems to be typical of Salon; one article in the sidebar, commenting on recent remarks made by former President Bush, is entitled "The swaggering idiot returns." I find Posner's article to be full of insinuation and misunderstanding; I can go into detail upon request, but I'm not sure what the point would be. This Wikipedia article should definitely discuss this aspect of the national conversation, but should not speak as if people like Posner are clearly in the right. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not asking for a biased article in either direction. I am asking that we work together to create a balanced article that is fair and accurate. I am asking for specific constructive suggestions for editing, not more elaborations of your opinions and of your biased attitudes. We both are biased. We can put that aside and help create a better Wikipedia article; or you can keep posting about your opinions and biases. I am asking you to step up.Chip.berlet (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I'm not asking for a biased article either, and I am glad to work together as you say. I hope you don't think my dislike of the Posner article is because I take the opposite side from her in the partisan dispute. That's not it at all; rather, I dislike the Posner article simply because it is partisan. Good scholarship, like a good Wikipedia article, is something in which everyone can see themselves accurately described, even if they disagree with some of its arguments. That does not describe the Posner article. To be honest, I think it does describe the current state of this Wikipedia article. If you disagree, I'm glad to discuss any constructive suggestions you may have. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The statements by conservative journalists Anthony Williams and Stanley Kurtz are biased--and far more snarky than anything Posner wrote. Joe Carter & Jeremy Pierce write for First Things, a conservative and traditionalist ecumenical religious journal that decries liberalism and the left. Almost every claim in the statement by Joe Carter is demonstrably false. Sara Diamond has refuted the claims. Schaffer's son has contradicted what Jeremy Pierce wrote, and detailed the fact that Francis Schaeffer was influenced by Rushdoony. Journalist Lisa Miller's column is biased an offensive, calling journalists and scholars who are critical of the influence of the broader Dominionist impulse within the Christian Right "paranoid." Do you consider scholars who raise these issues paranoid? Have you been following Rick Perry? Please read this essay: Tim Murphy, 2011, "What the Washington Post Gets Wrong on Dominionism," Mother Jones, August 26, [13] and we can discuss your refusal to see your own biases when I freely admit mine.Chip.berlet (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course Carter and Pierce and the rest are partisans, just as much as Posner. When trying to establish questions of fact, we should take under advisement the arguments of partisans on both sides, and we should follow scholarly writings when available. By "scholarly writings," I mean academic journals and the like.
You seem to think that we are here to discuss whether Perry and Bachmann are good leaders. For the record, I wouldn't vote for either of them in a million years. However, I think it is important to speak accurately about them. In particular, I object to ascribing to them theological beliefs that they do not hold.
I don't agree with everything you say above, and if you want to press some of those ideas into the article, we may need to discuss them.
You seem to want to make this about me. I'd prefer to keep our focus on the article. My primary focus here is not political; rather, I am concerned that Wikipedia speak accurately about the Christian community and about Christian theology. My problems with the usage of the term "dominionism" are along those lines. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance[edit]

Removed as resource because this site is neither scholarly nor journalistic. It is the idiosyncratic work of one industrious writer with no background that lends credibility to his views:

"Almost all of the over 6,000+ essays and menus on this web site (as of 2012-AUG) were written by our main author, and coordinator Bruce A. Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics."Chip.berlet (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

New Revisions 2015[edit]

Let's restart by having a discussion to which we invite other editors about the structure, content, and balance of the revisions and additions I made.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to join this conversation may of course do so. That's always been the case.
I actually think these edits are fine. I just made some minor fixes. Your edits clarify the relationship between Reconstructionists and the Christian Right (a perfectly legitimate topic for this article) without name-calling or theological misunderstandings. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me temper that endorsement a little bit by saying that I'm unsure whether the length of the Grant quote, together with Grant's relative obscurity, might raise an WP:UNDUE issue. Further, I'm not sure that it's fair to tie D. James Kennedy onto that quote, given that Grant's book was actually published under the auspices of Gary North. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I got a bit carried away with the Grant quote. I have narrowed the focus and size of the Grant quote as you suggested. Hope it is OK.Chip.berlet (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
We should cite Grant's book directly. I'm not sure if it's needed to mention Goldberg here at all, but again it might be. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You are correct on both issues: citing Grant directly and not needing Goldberg, but then we need to check the quote directly from Grant's book?Chip.berlet (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


2016 POV Discussion[edit]

"is applied primarily among non-mainstream Protestants" is vague, and far too easily infers that the groups labeled by this, are accepting to it. Hence, I'm going to drop 'among' for a clearer 'to.' Nothing in the article supports that the groups so labeled consider either the theory itself, or the name, as valid, so clarification is worthwhile. (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Having attempted once to clarify, this label is EXTERNALLY FORMED. It was never sourced FROM the movement, or if it was, it has never been shown. This whole article is a SOCIOLOGICAL LABELING of a similar set of beliefs. It is both insulting to supposed practitioners, and more importantly to future scholars, to not clarify that this label is not internal. I am once again rewriting the intro to clarify this. (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This whole page is a mess of unattributable statement, sound-bites, and disorganized hearsay. (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the label is not used by those to whom it applies. With regard to the mainstream Christian right being called "dominionist," this is clearly stated at the end of the Intro. With regard to Christian Reconstructionism, it is stated in its own article but maybe not so clearly here. It's not entirely clear to me which aspect you are talking only about. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is "among" being returned to the langauge in the intro? It implies internal, and this is an external. I will again change to the external "to". (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "mainstream" is POV, and unsourced. I will remove that from the intro. (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

After another 2 hour writing session, I have attempted a rewrite of the intro that is even less academically sound than my first, but is still far better in removing POV and hearsay than the one that was here this morning. More discussion is available below, as well as in the edit lines. (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

By Whom?[edit]

Could be the subtitle of everything. But in this case, who created the section 'etymology', and why? This looks like an attempt to validate by brass-plaque, as it not only ignores rules of etymology labels, it's totally unneeded since both words in the title are already defined. That said, the "title" is new enough that attribution should be available. (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

7 Mountains[edit]

This single tidbit line does nothing for the "etymology" and has no real relevance to the sentence before it. Perhaps the person insisting it stay find more to discuss on the topic so that it can be a full paragraph? Otherwise, it's orphaned, and in its current place it's completely wrong. (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis tag[edit]

The tag that was added says that "[r]elevant discussion may be found on the talk page." I tend to think its not very good form to add such tags without explaining your reasons on the talk page. Please do so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The lede is unsourced, which given the controversial nature of the subject would seem to be necessary, the etemology section has one source that doesn't reflect what's written and another behind a paywall, and the history section is unsourced. Reading the later sources it seems most of the unsourced aspects of the article are simply drawn conclusions from Sara Diamond's writings without attributing them. PeRshGo (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead summarizes the article, which is heavily sourced, and thus it is acceptable per WP:LEAD for it not to have citations itself. Nevertheless, if you can identify statements in the lead that you think may not be true, I would be happy to help identify the citations in the body text that should be appended to such statements.
Let’s please dispense with the idea that a source that is not freely available online is something less than a reliable source. That is quite contrary to policy.
The first paragraph of the Etymology section, up to the quotation from Genesis, seems an obvious thing to mention in order to orient readers who do not recognize the reference. I feel less strongly about the second paragraph of the Etymology section, and about the History section, both of which have evolved due to the actions of other editors. I think they give useful background, or at least they originally did, but some parts of those two paragraphs may answer the description in your complaint. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Etymology section implies that the words themselves are being defined by their source components. This is not an Etymology section, as it does neither component or historical investigation. It is a rationale section for why the title was decided upon, perhaps, but offers no sources to prove this. Hence, the BRASS PLAQUE accusation placed earlier. (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
That tag is auto-placed and, according to the actual usage, I think it is correct as well, but am willing to help get this to a non-POV viewpoint and properly sourced. (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding all your objections above: Most of your edits are fine, and I have made only minor changes. I removed the "seven mountains" sentence, to which you objected and to which I have no particular attachment (someone else added it, I think, and it was at least poorly placed within the article).

I have a hard time placing exactly from where your objections come. My perspective is that Dominion Theology, sometimes shortened to "dominionism," is a term that is appropriately applied (including by respected sociologists and theologians) to extremist groups such as Reconstructionism and Kingdom Now, but that the application of the term "Dominionism" to the whole Christian right is a partisan tactic. You seem to object even to the former. Is that right?

This could be important, because we formerly worked very hard to configure this article so that the article subject actually exists. For a long time, the second half of this article was a separate article entitled Dominionism. If you want to delve into a long and detailed and sometimes testy discussion, check out Talk:Dominionism. A primary problem there was that the article subject itself was a term whose usage was controversial, so the article was more about a word than about something that actually exists. We merged that article into this one so that we could start by talking about something that actually exists (Dominion Theology, meaning Reconstructionism and Kingdom Now and the like) and then move on to talk about the controversy regarding lumping the whole Christian right into that same grouping. That may be helpful background for you as you read the article in its current state.

I'm still unclear as to your objections to the Etymology section. Is it better now that I've removed the Seven Mountains part? There is a source, and I don't see how the explanation of the Genesis reference is at all controversial. Your reference to a "brass plaque" is unfamiliar to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My primary objections with the earlier versions were redundancies, unclear phrasings and POVs. The very word "Extremist" is purely POV.
Etymology sections normally include a phonetic spelling and a historical origin reference, for instance; "Mauritius (i/məˈrɪʃəs/; French: Maurice)".... What is currently labeled "Etymology" is closer to a narrative about one word in the title. I would be surprised if any other articles in Wikipedia have such a loose section.
Also, History was not at all useful in a separate section, as there was/is no serious history that needs such a strike of a separate section. Each of these items can currently be more reasonably and more smoothly gleaned from a solid opening, and from ordered discussion in subsections. (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you reworded the controversy section of the introduction. Unless I am mistaken, the following quote evidences that the entire idea of a Dominion Theology existing is in question: "[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." Also, the earlier versions of this article as Dominionism express that this is controversial. Finally, it remains academically and historically important to clarify that each of these labels are externally placed, not internally founded or used. (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Also I found this from one of the earliest versions of Dominion Theology which says this last point very nicely: "Dominion Theology is a term used by some social scientists and journalists to describe a theological form of political ideology, which they claim has influenced the Christian Right in the United States, Canada, and Europe, within Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It is associated in these writers' investigations with a broader movement they call Dominionism, and is described as a more ideologically aggressive and theologically coherent form of that movement." (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the word "extremist": You are right that it is POV, and the article successfully avoids using it except when reporting the opinions of others. Nevertheless, I find it useful in the context of this discussion for distinguishing the two uses of the term "dominionism." I hope you will forgive me for continuing to do so.
Regarding the "Etymology" section: Do you disagree with my contention that it is helpful to inform the reader about what kind of "dominion" people are talking about? If not, then please give a positive suggestion as to how to reword things so that your concerns are resolved.
Regarding your "[u]nless I am mistaken": with due respect, I think you are mistaken. That quote (which is from Joe Carter) is specifically aimed against the broadening of the term "dominionism" to include the entire Christian right. Please read the sections of this article on Christian Reconstructionism and Kingdom Now theology. These groups are what I have called the "extremists," and the term "Dominion Theology" has long been applied to these groups by respectable theologians and sociologists, with that term sometimes being shortened to "dominionism." Carter entirely ignores this usage. His purpose is not to talk about the extremist groups but to discuss the general Christian right.
Therefore, unless you can produce sources to indicate that adherents to Reconstructionism or Kingdom Now have significant objections to the term Dominion Theology, I think we should go back to the statement that the usage in their cases is not controversial, while the expansion of the term "dominionism" to include the entire Christian right is. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is and who isn't a Dominionist.[edit]

I reverted an edit that removed material I added about well known people who adhere to Dominonist beliefs. User:BlueMoonlet, the person who removed them said that we should only include people who call themselves this. I don't think that works because most of the people who adhere to this belief would not call themselves a Dominionist. I am not proposing to go labeling anyone who talks about putting god back in American life to be a dominionsit, but there are definitely people who in the forefront of this movement or line of thought of whatever it is. Calling these people where appropriate, adherents to the believe that American law should be based on the Christian Bible is not out of bounds. Now to take another side of the argument: What is the purpose of this article really? It could easily be seen by some as a coatrack or a vehicle for a fringe theory. It the article was put up for deletion, I would have a long think about voting delete. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people call themselves Dominionist - it's certainly not necessarily a pejorative term. But I agree, we either need self-identification, or at the very least multiple reliable sources describing them as such - and then we would only say they have been described as Dominionist. And I don't think Peacock Panache counts as a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
What I said was not that we should only include self-identifiers, but that non-self-identifiers should only be included if we can cite consensus among relevant social scientists. Journalists, especially ones known to be partisan, are not good sources for this sort of thing.
@Elmmapleoakpine: I would appreciate it if you would clarify your objections to this article, including its purpose and how it's written and whether it should be deleted. The article has been roundly criticized from people on both sides of the issue, which I take as a sign that it is not far from where it should be. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet- I don't think I really object to the article, it is more that the subject of the article is kind of imprecise. The Is it about the idea? (the regressive belief that the bible should replace current law and government) or the proponents (the phenomenon of people who believe a Christian God is running for office in the United States using self-appointed surrogate politicians) or is it both? I suspect that readers who come to the article are wanting to learn more about the latter. What are your thoughts?Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the title of the article denotes the idea, but any description of an idea necessarily covers those who hold it. I am still unclear as to the nature of your concerns. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet, Sorry for taking so long. The short answer is I don't know either. I am personally kinda fascinated by the subject. However the phenomenon doesn't really have enough independent sources to make a thorough article without veering into original research. For example, the video clip of Ted Cruz saying that "A man who doesn't start every morning on his knees in prayer doesn't have any business being commander and cheif." is a good example of Dominionist Theology at play in politics, but I wouldn't accept it as a reference according to WP. I appreciate you trying to respond to this concern I am having difficulty articulating, but for now, I will let it go. Well see where the article goes. It is an election season after all. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)