“Many nations will come, saying, ‘Come on! Let’s go up to the Lord’s mountain, to the temple of Jacob’s God, so he can teach us his commands and we can live by his laws. For Zion will be the source of instruction; the Lord’s teaching will proceed from Jerusalem. He will arbitrate between many peoples and settle disputes between many distant nations. They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations will not use weapons against other nations, and they will no longer train for war” (Micah 4:2-3; NET)
INTRODUCTION:
In painting you want to have alternatives. Things to choose from. This is the point of a swatch. It gives the DIY the opportunity to browse through various selections of paint in a thumbnail fashion. Anytime my wife wants to do a painting project she will get some swatches for me to peruse through. All of which have colors that interest her. It is then requested of me to pick what I might like as a color of interest.
If you’ve noticed I have chosen painting terms for each article thus far on the subject of Christian Nationalism. I’ve done this on purpose. People, through the use of language, are attempting to paint this movement in a variety of ways, some with a very broad brush. Today, I wanted to focus on something from a more precise angle: The Law of God. And, what that Law entails… dominion.
Dominion and the Law…
Speaking on dominion as an exercise of the Law of God R. J. Rushdoony states the following in his book Institutes of Biblical Law, in the 8th chapter, in light of the 8th commandment of God (cf. Exod 20.15):
“Man was created in the image of God and commanded to subdue the earth and to have dominion over it (Gen. 1:26-27). Not only is it man’s calling to exercise dominion, but it is also his nature to do so. Since God is the absolute sovereign Lord and Creator, whose dominion is total and whose power is without limits, man, created in His image, shares in this communicable attribute of God. Man was created to exercise dominion under God and as God’s appointed vice-gerent over the earth. Dominion is thus a basic urge of man’s nature. As a result of the fall, however, man’s urge to dominion is now a perverted one, no longer an exercise of power under God and to His glory, but a desire to be God… The salvation of man includes his restoration into the image of God and the calling implicit in that image, to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion. Hence, the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, according to the New Testament.”1
What Rushdoony is explaining to his readers is that the dominion mandate (or, cultural mandate) is both a calling (i.e., command of God), and an aspect of man’s nature (i.e., being an image bearer of God). Obviously, the fall perverted man’s desire for dominion, to subdue the earth, like it has all areas of a man’s life and thought. Sin twists what God originally created as “very good” (Gen 1.31), because sin’s desire is to be God, rather than, submitting to Him as Lord of life. However, the gospel of Christ Jesus, which is the gospel of the Kingdom (cf. Matt 4.23; Mark 1.15; Luke 16.16), is the restoration of properly exercised dominion on this earth through the sons (and daughters) of God (cf. Rom 8.19-21). Those who fall in line with His rule, under His law-word.
Those who disagree…
Of course, not everyone agrees. In fact, those that decry the idea of a Christian nation see this aspect as a danger, a twisting of the Scripture, and a deviation from the gospel of Christ. For example, Paul D. Miller implies that extremists on the Christian Nationalist perspective are dominionists and theocrats.2 Andrew Whitehead says,
“I’ve become convinced that the greatest threat to Christianity in the US is white Christian nationalism. Over and over, we [co-author Sam Perry of their book, Taking America Back for God] find evidence that the practical fruit of Christian nationalism is not love. It is power, control, domination, fear, and violence.”3
And, John Piper claims,
“The closer we get to Dominion Theology the closer we get to living by the sword… This seems to mean that we are not moving toward a true understanding of the kingdom of God in this world as we move toward a greater and greater use of the sword to authorize kingdom values.”4
Finally, one could look at the recent work of Ralph Drollinger in his identifying three dangerous theological constructs often tied by the liberal media to what they’ve labeled as the Christian Nationalist movement: Domionists, Reconstructionists, and theonomists.5
And yet, that’s not at all what is being argued for when speaking about Christian dominion and a theonomic outlook. Notice what else Rushdoony has to say about acting in favor of the chief sovereign, the Triune God of Scripture. He writes,
“Jesus Christ described Himself as ‘meek and lowly of heart’ (Matt. 11:29; rendered ‘gentle and humble’ by both Moffatt and BV). He described Himself as such in relationship to those who sought Him. In His relationship to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Christ’s conduct was firm and resolute. As Christ used the term meekness, it meant, not the surrender of dominion, but rather the wise, merciful, and gracious use of dominion. We cannot understand the meaning of meekness in Scripture unless we realize that it is not the surrender of dominion but rather the humble and godly use of dominion that it has reference to. The blessed meek are the tamed of God, those harnessed to His law-word and calling, who shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5). The blessed meek are those who submit to God’s dominion, have therefore dominion over themselves, and are capable of exercising dominion over the earth. They therefore inherit the earth.”6
He continues,
“This point is of very great importance. Apart from it, the gospel is perverted. Man has a God-given urge to dominion, to power. The purpose of regeneration is to re-establish man in his creation mandate, to exercise dominion and to subdue the earth. The purpose of the law is to give man the God-appointed way to dominion. The purpose of the call to obedience is to exercise dominion.”7
Before I proceed, let us for the moment work through what Rushdoony was arguing for. I for one think that his argumentation is sound both theologically and logically, but I would prefer if you, the reader, would likewise see his concern and share his conviction. Rushdoony is saying that true dominion—Christian dominion—is in fact the act of the meek before God. Christ was meek before those who sought Him out. To those who were willing to cast aside all else to follow Him, He was patient, giving and kind to. The only ones that Christ stiffened his back towards were the false professors, those that had a veneer of religiosity but lacked true conviction.
We must not forget that the gospels—the theological/historical narratives of the Messiah—were written within a world much like our own. Just as we have political and governmental issues that concern us, so to did they. Just as there were those who loved the praise of men, and feared that the government would take away their special place, and so, they continually offered praise and obedience to governing authorities in a non-godly way; so too, do we have charlatans within the Church that have gained notoriety in the public eye, in public areas of influence, who are quick to lambaste any Christian that questions the approved narrative or dares to offer prophetic warnings to the powers that be. Such types of men opposed Jesus in his day (both conservative and liberal), just as we have our own naysayers.
What Rushdoony explains to his readers is that true meekness as described in the Bible is not one that gives up dominion, but exercises it in a fashion that imitates the God who made us, and has redeemed us in His beloved Son, Our Lord (King) and God (John 20.28).
True Dominion Recognizes who owns what and to what end…
Rushdoony bases his argument for godly dominion on the 8th commandment. I cannot speak for everyone who accepts the moniker Christian Nationalist, but the basis of that argumentation is found on similar ground. The commandment states,
“You shall not steal” (Exod 20.15; NASB).
In light of this commandment and biblically defined dominion Rushdoony adds,
“It is very necessary therefore to recognize that the urge to dominion is God-given and is basic to the nature of man. An aspect of this dominion is property… The earth is indeed the Lord’s, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to given dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord’s; the present and historical title to property is man’s… [Scripture] gives property to man as an aspect of his dominion, as part of his godly subduing of the earth… God grants dominion to man under His law, but He does not grant His sovereignty. God alone is absolute Lord and Sovereign. To deny God’s sovereignty is to transfer sovereignty from God to man, or to man’s state.”8
When I sit back and think about the underlying angst aimed at Christian Nationalism, I am convinced that this is the source of their vitriol. Both dominion and law are typically understood in the sense of being overbearing, heavy-handed, and power hungry. But that is a closer description of fallen man’s tendencies, rather than, how the Bible defines them, and how the godly would exercise them. Law offers a black and white landscape where issues of right and wrong are concerned. Dominion suggests a right way to lead versus a wrong way to exercise authority in this world.
Thoughts on God’s Law and Our Angst towards it…
Since all evidence is interpreted in light of the presuppositional positions one holds, it makes sense that the world, and even members of the Church who are still under the sway of worldly thinking (in some areas, at least), would find the thought of biblical dominion and God’s law (theonomy) as disturbing realities. I have come to believe that the true source of this angst is revealed to us in passages like Romans 8,
“For the mind set on the flesh is death… because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Rom 8.6a, 7).
I’m not sure of your take on Paul’s words here are, but when I read them I understand the application going beyond just unredeemed man. You see, Paul is speaking about the spiritual versus the fleshly man. The Spiritual man is one who is led by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 8.4). That person’s concerns, their delight we might say, is the Law-Word of God (cf. Rom 7.14a, 22). This is the exact opposite of the carnal (i.e., fleshly) man. However, redeemed man still has some internal conflict existent within him (or her). Though they are being led by the Spirit, there is still a tendency, at times, towards the flesh. Though the believer delights with the Law of God in their heart, there are still instances where they kick against its tenets. If this weren’t the case, then we wouldn’t see the charge being delivered to us:
“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5.16; NASB9).
And now note the explanation given after the command:
“For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (Gal 5.17-18; cf. Rom 6.14; 7.22-25).
The fleshly nature still existent in redeemed man has its desires set against that which the Holy Spirit instructs. Having the mind of Christ, we desire to do what is right in our inner being. Sometimes this “fleshiness” is not even noticed until we have sinned against our Lord, and we are struck in the deep recesses of our heart. When realization strikes, when the wrong we’ve done comes to the forefront of our minds, we instinctively—that is, by our new nature—we cry out to our heavenly Father for mercy on the grounds of Christ’s sacrifice. This bears witness to the warring existent within the heart of the believer. Verse 18 proves that even though we sin, having given in, at times, to the desires of the flesh, which are contrary to the desires of the Spirit because of Christ Jesus, we are no longer “under the Law[‘s curse]” since He partook the curse of the Law for us (cf. Gal 3.13).
The problem of sovereignty…
The problem with the Law of God is what it points to; an absolute sovereign. You see, sovereignty implies dominion. That’s where the offense—the downright hostility—to the Law of God comes in. As a whole, mankind prefers to be his own sovereign; to exercise his or her own dominion; a reflection of their own law-system. This is true of every man, even redeemed man; albeit to a lesser extent. The truth is that men want to be free of restraint, real or perceived.
The fact of the matter is that there is no getting away from the theological concepts of dominion, reconstruction, or theonomy. At the head of every system is the chief end, for lack of a better term; the sovereign. Those that do not fear being labeled religious identify that chief end as God. Now what sort of god it is will be determined by the faith of the people under its headship. From that headship (i.e., god) comes a law-word (theonomy) from which dominion (power) is exercised, and the domain (i.e., world) it seeks to shape after its image. Mankind is a representative creature. That is how we were made. No amount of denying this by others changes this reality. We image what we hold dear, where our faith (our trust, our belief) is focused, and that image (idol) is what we recognize as god.
For the Christian we see the world as God’s creation, under the Headship of Jesus Christ, the rightful king of kings. As such, we understand that all things fall under His domain of influence (governance), and as citizens of His kingdom (which encompasses all creation, not just part of it), we represent Him in all areas of life. His ruler-ship is exercised by our faithfulness to His law-word, and that is visibly witnessed in the world around us as godly dominion. A dominion that seeks to construct the world after His likeness, in accordance with His will. We call it reconstruction because as far as the curse of sin is found, we are, as His vice-gerents refashioning it piece by piece. We recognize that the necessity is first and foremost a heart issue, but as our hearts have been changed by the Holy Spirit, so too have our thoughts, words, and deeds. Every action we commit then in this world is meant to be (ought to be) that which glorifies our Lord. And, since He promises to bless obedience on a small and grand scale, we recognize that in time, bit-by-successive-bit, this world will evidence the effects of our Savior Jesus.
I cannot speak for others that take the moniker of Christian Nationalist, but if such a term is appropriate, it is only appropriate in the sense that we recognize that every square inch of this world is our God’s. And so, whether it be the United States, or Canada, or Zimbabwe, or even China, all nations need to be Christian nations for our Lord’s Kingdom is universally applied, and their inhabitancy is on His borrowed capital.
There are a few other swatches that I want to look at, but I’ve said about all I want to in this post. And, no doubt, more than others wanted me to.
ENDNOTES:
1R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1973), 448, 449.
2He writes, “Moderate Christian nationalists are not dominionists or theocrats calling for a repeal of the First Amendment. They do not deserve to be smeared or have the sincerity of their faith called into question. But they do blur Christianity with American identity in a way that functionally excludes many Americans from being counted as full citizens of the nation. They do hold beliefs at odds with our Constitution and basic principles of religious liberty that protect our own worship and practice. These are politically dangerous beliefs, even if never accompanied by a violent deed or thought.” Paul D. Miller, “The Problem with Anti-Anti-Christian Nationalism,” September 13, 2023, Christianity Today, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/september-web-only/christian-nationalism-patriotism-extremism-moderates.html.
I would personally love to hear what specifics moderate Christian Nationalists have actually said, rather than blanket statements by people like Miller who do not cite their claims. As it stands, it is hearsay and mere opinion. Let us deal with specifics if we are going to argue for or against a position.
3Robert P. Jones, “American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism betrays the gospel and threatens the church,” August 4, 2023, Baptist News Global, https://baptistnews.com/article/american-idolatry-how-christian-nationalism-betrays-the-gospel-and-threatens-the-church/.
This dialogue took place in the form of an interview. Whitehead seems to believe that if Christianity were to define this nation and represent our governments exercise of protecting civic life, this could only be done by an excessive use of what he calls “power, control, dominance, fear, and violence”; adjectives often associated with a Christian Reconstructionist/Dominion mindset. Whether that is an accurate use of terminology to define those theological positions or the political movement defined by those who deem themselves liberals or progressives is yet to be seen; regardless of how strenuously they attempt to paint the movement they’ve labeled with a wide brush—i.e., a sweeping generalization.
4John Piper, “Dominion Theology or Reconstructionism,” April 1, 1994, Desiring God,https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/dominion-theology-or-reconstructionism.
The date of this short article was 1994, and yet the close ties with the rejection of Christian Nationalism on the same grounds of force, power, dominance, what Piper calls the use of the “sword”
5Ralph Drollinger, “The Faulty Theology Underlying Christian Nationalism,” September 13, 2023, Capitol Ministries, https://capmin.org/better-understanding-fallacy-christian-nationalism-ralph-drollinger/.
This article is actually very well written, although the argumentation is flawed and in some instances it seems as if Drollinger has either not read much of what Christian Reconstructionists have actually written, or he has failed to truly think through their argumentation because of some presuppositional blinders. Well worth reading and interacting with though.
6Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 450. Earlier, Rushdoony speaks of “a radical deformation of the gospel and of the redeemed man’s calling [which] crept into the church as a result of neoplatonism. Dominion was renounced, the earth regarded as the devil’s realm, the body despised, and a false humility and meekness cultivated. Dominion was regarded as a burden of the flesh rather than a godly responsibility. Especially with Pietism, Jesus was pictured as meek and helpless, pacifistic and mild of manner” (p. 449).
7Ibid., 450.
8Ibid., 451.
9All Scripture unless otherwise noted shall be of the New American Standard Bible 2020’ (NASB).
Kristafal's Musings 