A Letter to the Editor
Name withheld by request
I found your article of August 18th to be of particular interest, regarding the dominionist doctrines and your assertion that the group calling themselves "City Elders" are such proponents. They call themselves "Gatekeepers of the city", yet biblical examples show that such public offices were never a result of 'self-appointing'. In biblical examples they were assigned by the local governing officials. The gatekeepers of temples & tabernacles were appointed by the high priest. Just because a term rings of biblical reference, doesn't mean it is either currently appropriate or properly implemented.
This Oklahoma group calling themselves "City Elders" doesn't seem to have any such delegated power and appear to have declared themselves as invested with this authority. If they act on such claim of authority, then they should be regarded as a sophisticated mob rule. The group sells books on their website which hint at dominionist theology, but none of them are authored by Mr. McLain. Yes, he seems to be endorsing the sale of those books on the organization's website, but that may be pointing more to indiscretion than collusion.
Your article obviously doesn't come across as written by a person devoted to theological concepts, but your instincts appear to have a healthy concern for political impacts from various cultural & religious influences. Dominionists may start by insisting on a set of principles which must be adopted as public policy, but the list will keep growing until they start insisting that their approved leaders be vested with political power to institute the policies.
One online encyclopedia sums up Dominionism this way;
"Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their personal understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of achieving governing authority are varied."
This concept is not new nor was it always identified by the term 'Kingdom Now'. Various religious sects have always sought political ascendancy under various religious mandates. Like Communism, the adherents of Dominionism often dismiss past failures as owing to bad people who just weren't doing it right.
On the other extreme, some religions preach abstention from civic life & govt. service. Yet that is equally harmful to those who will inevitably be oppressed by the resulting tyranny.
For over 1000 years, much of Europe suffered under Dominionism in the form of the Holy Roman Empire and it's succeeding reorganizations. Many good & godly people died at the hands of corrupted religious people who declared any deviation from established doctrine as spiritual rebellion against God.
The experiments are equally horrendous when tried in other cultures & religions. The Crusades waging war in the middle east often declared; "It is God's will". Yet that proved to be a violation of the commandment;
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave anyone unpunished who takes His name in vain."
As children many of us were taught that vulgar speech was a violation of this commandment. But God will probably hold more preachers accountable for breaking this commandment than any other group. Ezekiel 22:28 says;
"They say, ‘My message is from the Sovereign LORD,’ when the LORD hasn’t spoken a single word to them."
The former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, said;
"Power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts absolutely."
Two common factors remain: All humanity is fallible. Accountability & transparency is essential to liberty.
I don't have the necessary insight to judge any particular Oklahoman whom I've never met; so I won't join your criticism of such individuals or groups. I will, however; make the general observation that all of humanity is imperfect and capable of corruption when insulated from proper accountability & if they negligent to maintain the virtues of humility & service to others.
Jesus said;
"The greatest among you will be your servant.".
The epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans has plenty to say about not imposing personal convictions upon others as a doctrine, much less a governing statute.
Many of my fellow Christians assert that our nation's laws must reflect our Christian heritage. That may seem harmless, yet it is a subtle form of establishing a state religious creed. Societies may want to prop up their culture via the statutory code, but only a limited govt. can achieve success in avoiding an offense to any people of faith. Yet that seems to me to be a loftier goal than control of govt. policy. The safest public policy is that which offends no particular creed, while still protecting us from injurious acts of others.
As the former Attorney General, John Ashcroft said;
"We must embrace the power of faith, but we must never confuse politics and piety. For me, may I say that it is against my religion to impose my religion.".
Ashcroft is a Pentecostal Christian. The vast majority of Christians I've encountered are simply trying to be better people, and not focused on whether others are meeting an imposed creed or conduct. They help people who ask for help, but they don't try to add to the 'blue laws' in our statutory code.
