The Definition of Dominionism: Another Conservative Evangelical Scholar Criticizes David Barton

A while ago, I defined Christian dominionism as ” about Christians being masters and non-Christians being slaves (in economic and political terms)” in my post: Ephesians 6 and Dominionists’ Emotional Appeals to defending slavery. Such a domination system has to have a nice smiling face that speaks softly of seemingly nice ideas in order to become part of the mainstream.

One such face is David Barton who continues to profit from selling lies. What Dominionism means is a Civic Religion of pseudo-Protestantism, a Protestantism without protest or one of its key teachings, Solo Christus/Christi (that Christian salvation is experienced through Christ alone). A professor of Church History from a conservative Southern Baptist institution has a description of both Barton’s faulty scholarship as well as dominionism in general.

From Miles S. Mullin II:

“Consequently, in Barton’s scheme, politics replaces discipleship, and the nation, not the church, becomes the focus of our efforts towards righteousness. Further, the church becomes a servant to the state, extolling America’s blessed history, proclaiming its righteous mission, and praising its glorious leaders. And thus, by taking Christ’s place in the church, the nation becomes an idol. And that is something my evangelical convictions cannot countenance.”

And there you have it, the definition of dominionism.

For more, see David Barton, Civil Religion, and Patriotic Idolatry from the Anxious Bench

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 thoughts on “The Definition of Dominionism: Another Conservative Evangelical Scholar Criticizes David Barton

  1. Lance

    Interesting read. A lot of people profit from selling lies, it really just depends on your moral compass whether or not that’s something for you. As Christians of course, we should strive to do business with integrity.

    Reply
    1. RodtRDH Post author

      You are so right Lance, Christians are held to a higher standard, but at the same time, in the field of history as an academic discipline, lies echo even louder and discredit Barton’s work, which he aims at other historians.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *