In “Cal State Prof: Michele Bachmann a Scary “Dominionist”?”( Pearcey Report, August 16, 2011), history prof Richard Weikart tries to wade through reams of nonsense to make sense of charges that traditional Christians – known worldwide for tolerance – want to start a theocracy: The big word that no one actually recognized is Dominionist – until various hysterics started shouting it. Weikart tries to sort it out:
As an undergraduate in the late 1970s I read just about everything that Schaeffer wrote. I read Schaeffer’s Christian Manifesto (1981), his most political book, as soon as it was published.
Even though I do not agree with Schaeffer’s position on political activism therein, it is hard to see how he could have stated his opposition to theocracy more plainly. He stated, “First, we must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that with great emphasis.”
So the Christian philosopher Schaeffer was sane*. Most of the people carrying on about “dominionism” are not sane. He goes on:
In the next paragraph he argued, “There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ, the King returns.” He then criticized the Roman emperors Constantine and Theodosius for merging church and state, calling it a mistake causing “great confusion.” Schaeffer was a strong opponent of theocracy (and thus dominionism), Lizza’s revisionist history notwithstanding.
Yes, Prof Weikart, but revisionist history is all these people have, plus Darwinism and the multiverse.
* You can’t have a theocracy unless you can elect God, and he never runs for office.