"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth."
-Genesis, 1:28
This single verse has had a powerful impact on western culture. While fairly simple and straight forward, it forms the religious foundation upon which consumerism, and manifest destiny are justified and things like climate change are denied. The state of humanity is understood to be an ongoing project to subdue and control the natural world, and the conquest of nature and the planet is seen as God's will and therefore just in all actions and most methods.
This, itself, has had some terrible consequences for our country.
But for some, like Ted and Raphael Cruz it doesn't stop at conquest of the natural world.
'Dominionism' is a theological approach that reads more into Genesis 1:28 than most other Christians. This theology focuses on the fact that the Christian god was the speaker and therefore the dominion over 'every living thing that moveth upon the earth' includes the rest of humanity. It is specifically the belief that Christians have a religious duty to create a Christian ruled world.
The result, if successful, would be Theocracy: "a form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed."
So the entire purpose of dominion theology is to establish a theocracy.
"My son Ted and his family spent six months in prayer seeking God's will for this decision. But the day the final green light came on, the whole family was together. It was a Sunday. We were all at his church, First Baptist Church in Houston, including his senior staff. After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor's office. We were on our knees for two hours seeking God's will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, "Seek God's face, not God's hand." And I'll tell you, it was as if there was a cloud of the holy spirit filling that place. Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, "Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want." And he felt that was a green light to move forward."
The speaker is Raphael Cruz, Ted's father, who Ted Cruz calls his greatest influence. Raphael is an unapologetic dominionist who has repeatedly stated he sees no difference between the theological an political realm. Echos of his position are present in much of what Ted says particularly to evangelical audiences.
The issue here is that theocracy and dominionism cannot coexist with democracy and diversity. They are diametric opponents. If your goal is to establish religious political rule then religious orthodoxy is the only legal reality that matters:You have to decide what god means, concretely, and over and above other interpretations in order for political rule to be consistent.
To anyone not a Christian, this is horrifying. But it's not exactly great for Christians either.
Christianity is made up of hundreds and hundreds of denominations practicing a myriad of different religious expressions under the broad umbrella of the religion. If a single interpretation is selected and designed as law, what does that make everyone else?
Well, they're heretics. Heresy is religious belief parallel with an established theology but deviant from established orthodoxy. It's a 'wrong' way to practice the religion.
Do I need to go into detail on how Christian heretics have been handled in the past?
People who are looking at Ted Cruz as a political figure based on his positions on laws, foreign policy, economics, health care, or anything else are putting the cart before the horse. They're missing the most important and the single most disqualifying aspect of his position that should render him a non-choice for anyone of any ideology.
It is not possible for a candidate to hold the Bible as the ultimate and absolute document in the practical leadership of a country and still respect the constitution as the highest law of the land. These two ideas represent two entirely different final masters of how the United States would be governed.
And "no man can serve two masters; Either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will hold on to the one and despise the other."
Ted should know this. After all, it's taken from the sermon on the mount by Jesus as described in Matthew 6:24.
Whatever else Ted Cruz might believe, this singular issue makes him the worst possible choice for president of the United States. It makes him a direct threat to everything that defines the United States a free country and makes the rest of his positions irrelevant. Ignoring that Ted Cruz is a dominionist to look at his political positions is like debating the best way to clean a house that's on fire. How the hell does it matter if the building burns down?
Have we fallen so far that even a redefinition of our country is not disqualifying for leadership?
-Genesis, 1:28
This single verse has had a powerful impact on western culture. While fairly simple and straight forward, it forms the religious foundation upon which consumerism, and manifest destiny are justified and things like climate change are denied. The state of humanity is understood to be an ongoing project to subdue and control the natural world, and the conquest of nature and the planet is seen as God's will and therefore just in all actions and most methods.
This, itself, has had some terrible consequences for our country.
But for some, like Ted and Raphael Cruz it doesn't stop at conquest of the natural world.
'Dominionism' is a theological approach that reads more into Genesis 1:28 than most other Christians. This theology focuses on the fact that the Christian god was the speaker and therefore the dominion over 'every living thing that moveth upon the earth' includes the rest of humanity. It is specifically the belief that Christians have a religious duty to create a Christian ruled world.
The result, if successful, would be Theocracy: "a form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed."
So the entire purpose of dominion theology is to establish a theocracy.
"My son Ted and his family spent six months in prayer seeking God's will for this decision. But the day the final green light came on, the whole family was together. It was a Sunday. We were all at his church, First Baptist Church in Houston, including his senior staff. After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor's office. We were on our knees for two hours seeking God's will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, "Seek God's face, not God's hand." And I'll tell you, it was as if there was a cloud of the holy spirit filling that place. Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, "Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want." And he felt that was a green light to move forward."
The speaker is Raphael Cruz, Ted's father, who Ted Cruz calls his greatest influence. Raphael is an unapologetic dominionist who has repeatedly stated he sees no difference between the theological an political realm. Echos of his position are present in much of what Ted says particularly to evangelical audiences.
The issue here is that theocracy and dominionism cannot coexist with democracy and diversity. They are diametric opponents. If your goal is to establish religious political rule then religious orthodoxy is the only legal reality that matters:You have to decide what god means, concretely, and over and above other interpretations in order for political rule to be consistent.
To anyone not a Christian, this is horrifying. But it's not exactly great for Christians either.
Christianity is made up of hundreds and hundreds of denominations practicing a myriad of different religious expressions under the broad umbrella of the religion. If a single interpretation is selected and designed as law, what does that make everyone else?
Well, they're heretics. Heresy is religious belief parallel with an established theology but deviant from established orthodoxy. It's a 'wrong' way to practice the religion.
Do I need to go into detail on how Christian heretics have been handled in the past?
People who are looking at Ted Cruz as a political figure based on his positions on laws, foreign policy, economics, health care, or anything else are putting the cart before the horse. They're missing the most important and the single most disqualifying aspect of his position that should render him a non-choice for anyone of any ideology.
It is not possible for a candidate to hold the Bible as the ultimate and absolute document in the practical leadership of a country and still respect the constitution as the highest law of the land. These two ideas represent two entirely different final masters of how the United States would be governed.
And "no man can serve two masters; Either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will hold on to the one and despise the other."
Ted should know this. After all, it's taken from the sermon on the mount by Jesus as described in Matthew 6:24.
Whatever else Ted Cruz might believe, this singular issue makes him the worst possible choice for president of the United States. It makes him a direct threat to everything that defines the United States a free country and makes the rest of his positions irrelevant. Ignoring that Ted Cruz is a dominionist to look at his political positions is like debating the best way to clean a house that's on fire. How the hell does it matter if the building burns down?
Have we fallen so far that even a redefinition of our country is not disqualifying for leadership?
Comments
Post a Comment