Left Hemispheres: Dominionism: A Primer on Mixing Christian Theology & American Politics (Part 1)

Left Hemispheres: Dominionism: A Primer on Mixing Christian Theology & American Politics (Part 1)

A very long read but well worth it!!

Beyond Alarmism and Denial in the Dominionism Debate

Beyond Alarmism and Denial in the Dominionism Debate

This article from August of last year may not seem important to some as Rick Perry is no longer a GOP presidential candidate. But even tho Perry is out, the New Apostolic Reformation is not. The influences of this ideology runs deep. Just some of the points made in this article:

C. Peter Wagner was the Donald McGavran Professor of Church growth at Fuller Theological Seminary when I was there as a student in the early 1990s. He had had a career on the mission field in South America before coming to Fuller, and what brought him there was a book he had written about his time as a missionary called Look out! The Pentecostals are coming.

That book chronicled what he termed the “move of the Holy Spirit” in the world today, and that the healing and deliverance ministries of Pentecostalism would reform the church. Wagner is not a theologian—and this is an important point—because much of what he is teaching is not filtered through systematic theology, or any other creed or doctrine. Rather, it is from the realm of the “Holy Spirit” and is “spirit-led” or derives from “divine revelation.” That makes it difficult to characterize, since he is mixing a lot of old doctrines and “heresy” together to make his NAR movement.

Wagner’s founding of the NAR comes out of two streams: one, his time at Fuller seminary from the 1970s on, working with John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard church movement, and second, from his work in the church growth movement. He was considered to be the heir of Donald McGavran, founder of the church growth movement. That movement essentially said “whatever grows a church is good” and needs to be nurtured. When McGavran retired in the early 1980s, Wagner was his heir apparent.

Two things that concern me "spirit-led" and "whatever grows the church is good". Something about those two thoughts send chill up and down my spine. when I first read this article the hair on my neck stood straight. Too cult-ish sounding to me, a bit of Catholicism and Mormonism mashed together; my first thoughts.

The NAR was “created” by Wagner after leaving Fuller. Wagner believes that the offices of apostles and prophets are still given by God for today, and they are not just for the church, but for the world. Some apostles are to lead the church, and others are to lead in the world, in order to bring the world under the rule of Jesus or the “Kingdom of God.” This “reformation” operates a lot like a Amway organization, with certain apostles, who are connected to churches having an area that they preside over; others are “apostles” because they have achieved success in the “world.”

I like the use of the word "created" as that is exactly what has occurred. An empire is born, a means to control the masses; not unlike the Roman Empire or the Catholic Church it developed into.

I’m really glad you brought up the entrepreneurial/multilevel marketing aspect of this. There’s big money in all the conferences, books, DVDs, speaking honoraria, and so forth. His “apostles” have a pecuniary interest in bringing in more followers and rising higher in the hierarchy.

,,,they’re interested in the bodies that NAR types bring to events like Perry’s and ultimately to the voting booth. That’s been a longstanding strategy of GOP candidates

Bring me the money!! Religion as big business, and yes it is big!!

All of the groups are enmeshed in a symbiotic web. These evangelists’, apostles’, and leaders’ messages are the commodity, and you have to buy the books, conferences, and other materials in order to get the blessings. I know that will seem distasteful and a caricature to some, but these events are well-attended, and at a hundred bucks a person, revenues from book and DVD sales. Conferences and meetings like Lou Engles’ The Call are not just prayer meetings, they are Christian marketplaces, with all sorts of spiritual wares being sold.

As to the political interaction, all of these groups know they don’t have the numbers alone to bring folks in, they need to interact for like-minded causes. Electing a “Christian” is a like-minded cause, whether you believe in dominionism or not. A politician like Perry knows that he has to get these groups to coalesce together on his side in order to get votes and support. Whether Perry believes what they preach is up for debate, but it is clear that he is willing to use them to the fullest extent to gain the support he needs for a presidential run.

These events are, like I said, performances that are carefully staged and mapped out; there may be a series of speakers who seem like they are reacting spontaneously to what’s happening, moved by the holy spirit. But it’s carefully orchestrated, along with mesmerizing music, for maximum impact. It’s big business.

For the last 30 years, journalists have had an easy time reporting on the religious right, because all they did was pay attention to to white male leaders of big organizations like Focus on the Family, National Association of Evangelicals, or Family Research Council. The days when a nice soundbite from Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or Ted Haggard would suffice are over. If journalists and others want to understand the last 10 years of the religious right movement, they will need to pay attention to the theological, religious, and ethnic diversity among evangelicals, Pentecostals, and non-denominational churches.

And what they are putting in the koolaide,,,

When journalists discount the religious right it just tells me that they are still uncomfortable writing about religion; it takes work to understand the nuances of belief. What this brouhaha about dominionism and NAR shows is that there is a place for the naysayers and the dominionist researchers alike. What Rick Perry’s prayer rally did was to give all of this a big enough footprint in the media so that everyone felt comfortable pontificating about what they thought was going on, even if some journalists didn't get it

No when they discount the RR they trying to save their own asses. Thankfully not all journalists can be categorized as such.

The fact of the matter is, the players have shifted, the playing field is broad, complex and worldwide, and religious conservatives’ role in American electoral politics is still strong. To cite Led Zeppelin, the song remains the same. Only the players of the song have changed, and they’ve added some old and new instruments to make their performances of religiosity and political action remain the same moral tune.

Santorum Says If Elected, He Will Unmarry Gay and Lesbian Couples | God Discussion

Santorum Says If Elected, He Will Unmarry Gay and Lesbian Couples | God Discussion

What an evil man to ruin the happiness of other people! First, he wants to ruin women’s health and welfare, now he wants to destroy people’s happiness by forcing a divorce on them and telling them whom they cannot marry. It also sounds like he wants to change the Constitution too.

Of course, this gives him the support of the Religious Reich, who do not believe anyone deserves health and happiness, unless God grants it, and accordingly, their god only wants specific people to marry and only if they are not the same sex.

I find it very sad when someone is not only self-destructive, but also cruel and hateful enough to destroy other people’s happiness. Of course, the Family Research Council, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, supported Santorum’s stance.

Why is religion considered philosophy? | An American Atheist

Why is religion considered philosophy? | An American Atheist

Some interesting points to consider and well thought out:

Religion has value, as many people will testify. As wellsprings of symbolism, metaphor, allegory and simile, books such as the Holy Bible and Koran clearly have tremendous value. But their value ends there, as purely aesthetic symbolism. We all agree that theologians are not engaged in active discourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of their claims, and, as I have said, the goal of a theological system is intellectual stagnancy. Sure, religious apologists abound, but the mental acrobatics required to have their systems make even the smallest breath of sense is astounding, illustrating their utter disregard for the principle of parsimony. These facts alone remove theology permanently from the realm of philosophy.

They all involve heavy discourse founded in an ultimate goal to describe the way things are, or aid in understanding. They are built upon, changed, and are adjusted based on new facts and insights—their aim is to discover truth. The same cannot be said of theology.,,,Theology represents stagnance.

From the comments:

I think that “love of wisdom” is a good definition for philosophy. I fail to see how faith and wisdom can be joined. It is not wise to believe things on faith.

Three Books Every Blog Writer Should Read Right Now | Blog Tweaks

Three Books Every Blog Writer Should Read Right Now | Blog Tweaks

May have to look into getting these!!

Sleep study video captures last hours of man’s life | Fox News

Sleep study video captures last hours of man’s life | Fox News

"According to MyFoxAtlanta, Emory Healthcare would not comment on the bill because of the pending lawsuit, but said Harris’ sudden cardiac arrest was ‘appropriate’ given his medical condition."

Uhm,,,hello,,,appropriate?? Since when is a client/patient's death appropriate!!

They can't even agree on how long a day is,,,

Schroeder is the author of several books, including the just released "God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along." But it's his 20-year-old "Genesis and the Big Bang" -- which seeks to reconcile the Bible with physics, cosmology and evolution -- that's still shaking the scientific and religious communities.

God created the universe in six days. Science says it took 15 billion years. How to reconcile those numbers? If you're Gerald Schroeder, the answer is simple: Do the math.

His thesis hinges on the fact that time is not a constant: It's relative, at least according to Albert Einstein. Schroeder insists that the biblical calendar begins with the appearance of Adam on the sixth day, not with the creation of the world. "Relativity," he says, "has proven the flexibility of time during those six pre-Adam days of Genesis."

Crticisms:

Peter Enns blasts the effort, saying it's "absurd that you can actually find physics in Genesis I."

But Karl Giberson,,,doesn't buy Schroeder's theory. "The Bible isn't set up with hidden codes based on 20th century science that couldn't have been understood by the writers of the text," he said.

Ken Ham, director of the Creation Museum and the organization "Answers in Genesis."

"The first thing I look at," said Ham, "is to question what is his ultimate motivation?"

,,,He said Schroeder "has accepted the secular view of 15 billion years as the age of the universe, so his ultimate motivation is to fit 15 billion years into the Bible's account. He then develops this model, to fit that model."

And this folks is partly why I believe (or disbelieve) in the way I do. They can't even figure out what the hell the first 2 chapters of the Bible are talking about when it uses the word day. Some believe in innerancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the text, some don't. Some are literalists other are more progressive in their reading. So who is right??

Back with a vengence

Greeting all, it has been a while since I have been able to consistently post new material. I see that in the last few weeks I have somehow managed to gain some new followers and readership both here and via twitter, for which I am truly honored and humbled by. Who would have thought then when I started this blog for purely personal reasons that people would actually be interested - go figure. But I thank all of you that have joined me in this endeavor, what ever that may be.

I have been busy with with some other projects so have managed to put myself behind in my reading (really behind as some of the articles go back almost 7 months). But those older articles in my view are still pertinent so I will continue to post em. I figure the authors took the time to research and write them least I can do is pass them along.

And of course with election season fast approaching I will b adding my two cents in. Topics that light a fire under my ass - any stupidity by the (far) right, which lately seems to be any time they open their mouths; LGBT issues; church /state issues; and mental health issues. Those are my personal pet peeves, but have been reading numerous things lately that really stick in my craw (ie. Rush Limbergcheese man and his toilet mind, Romney and his idea that the tornado victims aren't entitled to help from the government, shit like that.)

So to those of you that are new, welcome to the chaos of my mind. For those of you that have been following me for a while thanks for sticking around.

Oh one last thing,,,don't be afraid to leave comments, I'm sad no one has left any :(( Just please keep it nice, no nastiness. If it opinion let it be known. If re-stating another's opinion you agree with, cite them; anything you cite I will read. I love a good debate, but please be advised that if you go Bible thumper on me and start quoting scripture, your arguments will hold no force with me. As an atheist, the Bible holds no authority in my life and is no better than quoting Shakespeare. (I'll be writing more on this later as I have been talking with some friends and altho not fundies they still, don't understand how I can be an atheistic leaning deistic agnostic,,,sigh,,,sometimes I think I'm talking in circles; maybe I am.) So feel free to spout your angst at my rants and raves!!

Santorum: ‘Higher-income people don’t have to pay taxes’ | The Raw Story

Santorum: ‘Higher-income people don’t have to pay taxes’ | The Raw Story

So is Santorum saying that the 1% are pricks and because of this, the rest of us should appease them by lowering their taxes?? Also I thought President Obama was
continuing juniors tax cuts or am I mis-informed??

Romney: No need to raise the minimum wage | The Raw Story

Romney: No need to raise the minimum wage | The Raw Story

Not quite sure how to take this story,,,headline seems a bit misleading. Indexing minimum wage to inflation?? So does that mean if inflation drops our wages drop??
What about the costs of goods and services, will they be required to also make this adjustment??

Need to read more about this to better understand.

Obama impersonator dead at 48 | Fellowship of the Minds

Obama impersonator dead at 48 | Fellowship of the Minds

Don't know to laugh or cry at this one!! Why must one see conspiracy at every turn?

10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked | | AlterNet

10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked | | AlterNet

Some points to consider:

You can’t be angry with a being that you don’t believe exists. I’m no angrier with God than I am angry with Zeus or the aliens that keep kidnapping drunks sleeping in their cars. Anger with religions for promoting false beliefs isn’t the same thing as being angry at the being that believers invented.

,,,however, you’ll see that the ranks of outspoken atheists have far more women that the media would let on. Atheist blogger Jen McCreight grew so tired of this myth that she compiled an extensive list of prominent female atheists such as Susan Jacoby, Rebecca Watson and Lori Lipman Brown. Greta Christina followed up with a list of prominent atheists of color, such as Debbie Goddard, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Hemant Mehta. Women are specially targeted for religious oppression around the world, so of course, many of us will be open to arguments against the legitimacy of religion.

,,,“Atheism is just another kind of faith,” because it’s a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you’ve succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it’s time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes.

When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you’re trying to argue from a position of moral superiority.

There’s really no reason to believe that happiness and fulfillment come from a supernatural place, or else believers would have no need for fulfilling work, loving families, friends, and hobbies, since their spiritual beliefs would suffice. Most atheists actually find our lack of belief in a supernatural being makes it easier to fill our lives with meaning and joy. Since we don’t believe in an afterlife, many of us find ourselves more motivated to make the most out of the time we do have instead of looking to the next life to make us happy.

Philosophy and Religion: What I’ve Learned Through Our Episodes | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Philosophy and Religion: What I’ve Learned Through Our Episodes | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Altho I have listened to all of PEL, I'm going to have to re-listen paying attention to the thoughts Mark has pointed out. I really must become more active as they have an excellent facebook group as well as their blog.

Quantum Theology: Our Spooky Interconnectedness | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches

Quantum Theology: Our Spooky Interconnectedness | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches

Altho I suspect a difficult read as physics alludes me, this book intrigues me for some reason. I did just download the Cusa book mentioned and will be taking a look at that.

11 Children's Movies With Political Agendas? You Betcha, Say Conservatives Gallery - The Hollywood Reporter

11 Children's Movies With Political Agendas? You Betcha, Say Conservatives Gallery - The Hollywood Reporter