October 2003
Brian Baxter *

Many Australian religious organisations would like to see this country governed according to ‘biblical standards’. They are distrustful of concepts like ‘pluralism’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘tolerance’ and would much prefer to see Australia run as a ‘Christian country’ with a ‘Christian government’, a ‘Christian economy’, ‘Christian schools’ etc.

This theocratic approach to politics is often called ‘dominion theology’ and it has a wide range of guises and levels of intensity. Dominion theology is formally defined as ‘a term used to describe various groups of [usually evangelical] Christians who believe Christians are called to transform society in a way that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus’. (Barron, 1992, 216) In other words, adherents of dominion theology favour Christian political activism leading to sweeping social change, rather than mere adjustments to the social system. In practical terms, these proposed changes tend to be of an authoritarian kind.

In its extreme form, dominion theology is termed ‘Christian Reconstructionism’, defined as ‘a contemporary Christian movement that aims at the eventual restructuring of society in accordance with the guidelines of the Bible, especially the first five books of the Old Testament’. (Barron, 1992, 218)

In a full-blown Reconstructionist Australia, we would be governed by the Law of Moses. The death penalty would be freely applied for ‘crimes’ ranging from heresy and blasphemy to adultery, abortion and homosexuality. Striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency and, in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage’ would also be punished by death. Biblically-approved methods of execution would include burning, stoning, hanging and beheading with a sword. Gary North, a leading Reconstructionist, prefers stoning, as stones are ‘cheap, plentiful and convenient’. (Clarkson, 1994, 2)

How does living under ‘Mosaic Law’ work out in practice? American commentators Wayne House and Thomas Ice give these examples:

Case 1: Frank has an oak tree near the corner of his unfenced lot. A twelve-year old boy, Nick, has fallen from the tree and died of a head injury. When the local magistrates investigate …, they find that another young climber had also fallen from the tree five years earlier, with only a minor injury … Frank had been warned by a local elected civil elder … to take measures to prevent any further injury. So Frank grudgingly put up a warning sign, which had long since become weathered and unreadable.Frank is convicted of criminal negligence by a local court and an appeals court. George, Nick’s father, hears a remorseful public plea by Frank for acceptance of restitution… But the young lad was his father’s only son, and his oppressive grief cannot be overcome. On a prescribed date, Frank is led into a municipal plaza and [stoned] to death with hundreds of rocks hurled [by] a crowd of men. (House and Ice, 1988, 63-4)

The second ‘hypothetical’ involves slavery. According to Rev. Rousas Rushdoony, the senior Reconstructionist theoretician, the Bible stipulates slavery as the proper restitution for certain lesser crimes as well as for those unable to meet their debts. Rushdoony explains that:

The law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognises that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognise his position and accept it with grace. (Anti-Defamation League [Cantor], 1994, 124)

House and Ice’s ’slavery’ case reads as follows:

Case 2: Marge, age 33 and a passive non-Christian, voluntarily sold herself three years ago to become the slave of Elton and his family, as restitution for totalling their only vehicle … In four years she will be released from slavery in the sabbath year. One day she mistakenly instructs a hired landscaper to cut the lower branches from Elton’s favourite pepper tree. Elton … flies into a rage when he learns of this. He picks up a three-foot-long branch … and strikes Marge several times on her head, shoulders, back and legs, causing deep welts and bruises and a badly swollen left eyelid.A local civil elder called by a neighbour checks on the situation and prepares release papers for Marge based upon Exodus 21:26 ['And if a man smite the eye ... of his maid, that it perish; he shall let (her) go free for (her) eye's sake.'] But two days after the beating, Marge’s eye is better … Elton is judged to have been penalised by losing Marge’s work for two days. Marge remains his property and no action is taken against him. (House and Ice, 1988, 64)

Women have a rough time in these proposed Reconstructionist societies. They are relegated to the home and home schools, and banned from government. The Reconstructionist author Joseph Morecraft asserts that the very existence of female civil magistrates ‘is a sign of God’s judgment on a culture’. (Clarkson, 1997, 91) Another leading writer, Gary North, suggests that women who have abortions should be publicly executed ‘along with those who advised them to abort their children’. (Clarkson, 1997, 81) (One assumes that a just God would want the law to operate retrospectively, its promulgation having occurred some millennia ago. As an estimated 100,000 abortions take place in Australia each year, the executions of all these women, plus supportive partners, friends and relatives, plus the associated doctors, nurses and other hospital and clinic staff might raise some interesting public policy questions!)

Readers will doubtless be relieved to hear that most Australian adherents of dominion theology are not outright Reconstructionists and do not accept these extreme views. However, they do want to see this country governed by Christians according to ‘biblical standards’, and what these standards entail is a matter of considerable debate.

Dominion theology in Australia

I will not spend much time here on Australian Reconstructionists. Looking back over the past twenty years or so, there have been some significant Reconstructionist groupings, notably Rev. Howard Carter’s Logos Foundation and Ian Hodge’s Foundation for the Advancement of Christian Studies, but these bodies have not figured in general evangelical literature for some time. Carter, like so many others of his kind, confessed in 1990 to an adulterous liaison with a female parishioner and dragged his organisation down with him. (Roberts, 1990)

Examination of the publications of Australia’s leading Religious Right groups - the Australian Festival of Light/Christian Democratic Party, Answers in Genesis, the Australian Family Association and Salt Shakers - will sometimes reveal an avowedly Reconstructionist link. (Baxter, 2002, 38-9) Much more common, however, is the more ‘moderate’ dominionist emphasis with its call for Christian politicians, Christian leaders, Christian governments and a Christian nation.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for a Religious Right organisation to distance itself to any extent from dominion theology. Even if such a group does not specifically subscribe to the teachings of Francis Schaeffer and other similar writers, its policies on structural issues such as acceptable forms of government, and policy questions such as the role of censorship, or laws regarding abortion, will inevitably become ‘operationally dominionist’. These bodies cannot achieve their long-term goals in the absence of a ‘Christian’ government and to that extent the Festival of Light and the other groups mentioned above must act according to the principal dictates of dominion theology.

How can we recognise adherents of dominion theology?

Look out for any person or group displaying some or all of the following characteristics:

• regular use of the terms ‘dominion mandate’, ‘Biblical world-view’, ‘the Kingdom’, ‘cultural warfare’, ’spiritual warfare’, ‘Christian nation’, ‘Christian heritage’, Christians as ’salt and light’;
• an unshakable conviction that they are the sole custodians of ‘the truth’;
• near-obsessive, condemnatory interest in sex-related social issues such as gay rights, pornography, abortion, sex education, feminism;
• advocacy of a monolithic Christian ‘line’ on these and related issues;
• advocacy of direct Christian political action on these issues (anti-pietism);
• strong emphasis on Old Testament moral law, as part of a recognisably Old Testament orientation;
• quoting authors such as Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, John Whitehead, Os Guinness (or, for Reconstructionists, Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton);
• showing relatively little (or no) interest in ’social gospel’-type issues normally associated with Christian activity in the modern era, such as poverty, unemployment, the plight of the underprivileged etc.;
• attacking ‘pluralism’, ‘tolerance’ and defending ‘discrimination’;
• a personal style involving anger (often to the point of rage), confrontation and extensive use of war imagery;
• strong interest in Christian schools and home-schooling;
• downplaying, or even ignoring denominational differences, even between evangelicals, charismatics and Catholics, in order to advance political causes;
• characterising opponents as demonic.

Case Study: Salt Shakers

I shall try to illustrate these points by looking at a relatively small, but militant organisation called Salt Shakers (SS). This group was formed in Melbourne in 1994 by Peter and Jenny Stokes and now has a national outreach. Although the term ‘dominion theology’ does not appear in SS publications, let us see how they fare when measured against the above criteria.

Terminology

Terms such as ‘Biblical world-view’, ’spiritual warfare’, ‘Christian heritage’ etc. occur regularly throughout the Stokes’ literature. As for the so-called ‘dominion mandate’ granted by God to mankind (see Genesis 1:26-29), here is the reaction of SS contributor Andrew Lansdown (also a leader of Life Ministries, WA) to a fatal shark attack near Cottesloe Beach, after several people had expressed concern about an order to kill the shark:

In reality, the whole earth is mankind’s domain … Exodus 21:28 states, ‘If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death’. It is fair to say that what is true for a bull is true for any animal, including a shark. If any animal kills a human being, it must be put to death. This commandment to the nation of Israel is based upon the universal principal [sic] stated in Genesis 9:5: ‘And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal …’ God will not tolerate the killing of innocent human beings, whether the killers are humans or animals. He will hold them to account at the cost of their blood … (Salt Shakers Journal (SSJ), Feb. 2001, 13)

As well as the reference to mankind’s terrestrial dominion, note the strong reliance on literal Old Testament law (more characteristic of Reconstructionists than more moderate dominionists) and the tendency to simple magical thinking (God ‘holding animals to account’ as if they can distinguish between what humans regard as good and evil.)

Political action and ‘the Truth’

Peter Stokes is very concerned about the many Christians who feel that ‘politics and religion don’t mix’:

We [Christians] are all too happy to leave satan [sic - somewhat quaintly, Stokes refuses to spell 'Satan' with a capital 'S'] and his earthly associates to keep making things worse by passing bills which legalise and normalise activities and lifestyles God says are wrong. My understanding of Scripture says we should not just be there to apply the ‘band-aid’. We must try and take away the cause that created the need for the band-aid. (SSJ, Aug. 2001, 2)

Having encouraged his Christian readers to become ‘SALT and LIGHT’ in the community (hence, of course, the name ‘Salt Shakers’), Stokes prescribes the future course of their political action:

In practical terms, then, politics begins within the home and the family - setting policy/rules for children and teenagers. [This is a highly Reconstructionist approach to this issue, although Stokes is not a full-scale Reconstructionist.] It spreads to the church with involvement in church councils and ministry groups. Being active in politics can also mean being on the local school Council, being a councillor in local government or even an elected Member of Parliament at State or Federal level … As conscientious citizens of this nation/world, each Christian should establish a Biblical world view … (SSJ, Aug. 2001, 4, 5)

Stokes concludes in fine dominionist style:

There is a war going on, it is Christianity versus secular humanism and the humanists are winning [war imagery]. This is largely because too many Christians are often off playing at being ‘nicer than Jesus’ - not wanting to confront society, not prepared to warn people about hell [scornful attitude to pietistic Christians; stressing existence of hell, Satan, demons etc.] … We are hearing the political correctness and tolerance messages from the world [disapproval of tolerance] … and many Christians are not prepared to confront the hard issues [militant approach].In the meantime:
The pro-euthanasia lobby promote legalised murder, the pornography lobby promote the use and abuse of women and the homosexual rights lobby promote anti-discrimination [!] and same gender marriage.The pro-abortion lobby continues to say it’s a woman’s ‘right’ to kill her child and in our schools, family planning groups and the Australian Education Union promote condoms in morals-free sex-education classes … [Stokes' interest is principally in sex-related social issues; extensive use of hyperbole]

The question is: When are Christians going to get ‘political’? We have the TRUTH and the truth will set them free. We have the answers to all society’s problems. We are the only ones who can show true direction for this nation … [delusional monopoly on truth] (SSJ, Aug. 2001, 6)

Other dominionist characteristics

Stokes and other SS writers frequently quote most of the ‘approved’ authors mentioned above. Abraham Kuyper (also a favourite of Rev. Fred Nile’s) once had the entire front page of Salt Shakers Newsletter devoted to his rousing exhortation:

When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin. You must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the fire of your faith. (Feb. 1996, 1)

Francis Schaeffer’s ideas are also drawn on by many Salt Shakers and the Australian branch of the L’Abri Fellowship, which promotes Schaeffer’s ideas, has been advertised in SS publications. Bill Muehlenberg, a senior figure in the Australian Religious Right, quotes from the Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen in an article about homosexuality. (SSNewsletter, October 1995, 6)

Other-worldly dominionist preoccupations are featured in this recent article from Salt Shakers Journal (April 2003, 15-16):

The Board of Salt Shakers recently invited Reinhard and Trudy Junginger, of Oz Challenge, to come to our office and lead us in a time of prayer and spiritual warfare. As they prayed they discerned that we are under increasing spiritual attack. What was revealed regarding the many different forces coming against us came as no surprise as we continue to confront the ‘principalities and powers of the air’ …

The prayer leaders then offered a singular prayer, recommended by SS to its readers as a way of guarding against ’spiritual attack’. It involves asking God for various items of weaponry and armour, including the Belt of Truth, the Shoes of Peace, the Shield of Faith, etc. The weird and occultic world inhabited by these people is exemplified in the following parts of the prayer:

I place on myself the Helmet of Salvation … I now bind all spirits that would try to destroy my mind … Spirits of mind-control, anti-Christ, death and hell, condemnation, oppression, depression, shame, guilt, unbelief, confusion and mental anguish. I bind all these spirits in Jesus’ name and I render them powerless …I take the Sword of the Spirit … I now would seek to cut off from me … all demonic spirits and activities from my life, all watcher and listener spirits, blockers, scramblers, principalities and powers, all rulers in high places and all strongholds … I cut and negate all curses that have come through prayers, spells, chants, hexes, incantations … I command all demons and spirits … to leave me at once and to go to the pit. I grind all chords [sic] attached to us into dust and throw them into the pit …

This particular dominionist-oriented grouping seems to be playing a version of ‘Dungeons and Dragons’, but one which has actual effects upon the society in which we live. Members of Salt Shakers lobby very hard to change the ways in which modern society operates, on the basis of what seems to be a bizarre and fantastic view of the universe, shared by few Christians, let alone the average Australian.

Conclusion

I make the point again that although groups like the Festival of Light/Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Christian Lobby and Salt Shakers may not call themselves ‘dominionists’ or ‘Reconstructionists’, it is virtually inevitable given their goals that they will behave in ways prescribed by dominion theology. It seems to me that they cannot escape the charge of wishing to construct an Australian theocracy, even though they themselves may not conceive their objective in these terms.

In the pages of Salt Shakers Journal, Bill Muehlenberg calls for more ‘Christian journalists, Christian politicians, Christian teachers …’ to advance the cause (June 1997, 13); Neil Ryan informs us that legislating morality ‘is precisely the principal function and purpose of legislation and law’ and implies that ‘the codification of Biblical Judeo-Christian principles’ is the answer to all social problems (Aug. 1997, 5, 7); and Pastor Steve McNeilly proclaims that ‘Christian morals form the best possible basis for society’, but that ‘the values of pluralism, relativism and individualism’ keep getting in the way. (Sept. 2001, 3-4)

For the sake of freedom, justice and sanity in this country, let us hope that these values keep getting in the way of dominion theology for a long time to come.

Bibliography

Anti-Defamation League (D. Cantor) (1994) The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America (ADL)

Barron, Bruce (1992) Heaven on Earth? The Social and Political Agendas of Dominion Theology (Zondervan)

Baxter, Brian (2002) Should Christians Support Answers in Genesis? in The Skeptic, Summer issue 2002, 36ff.

Clarkson, Frederick (1994) Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence in Public Eye Magazine, March/June 1994.
www.publiceye.org/magazine/chrisre1.html

Clarkson, Frederick (1997) Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy(Common Courage Press).

Diamond, Sara (1995) Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States (Guilford).

House, H. Wayne and Thomas Ice (1988) Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?: An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionism (Multnomah).

Roberts, Greg Cracks in the Foundation in Melbourne Age, 13 October 1990.

Salt Shakers Journal/Newsletter various issues, 1995-2003.

Shupe, Anson (1997) Christian Reconstructionism and the Angry Rhetoric of Neo-Postmillennialism in Robbins, Thomas and Susan J. Palmer (eds.) Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements (Routledge), 195f