Their Kingdom Come: Dominionism's Quest for Political Capital in the Emergent World Order

[Pastor Dale Morgan]

*Their Kingdom Come: Dominionism's Quest for Political Capital in the
Emergent World Order*

By Phillip D. Collins & Paul Collins

May, 2008

Dominionism: Marrying Christianity to the Kosmos

In John 18:33, Pilate asked Jesus, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" In
John 18:36, Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not of this world." The
original Greek word for "world" is kosmos, which connotes an
arrangement, system, order, or government. Jesus was not expressing
derision for the physical world, but with the usurious political systems
that had come to dominate it. Some Christians have construed this
response as a rationale for indolence and have embraced an apathetic
brand of political abdication theology. However, Christian proponents of
political abdication fail to consider the transliteration of kosmos and
the historical background against which the term was invoked. Jesus was
not condemning political activism. Instead, He was condemning the
world’s political systems of that time, specifically the oligarchical
model of the Roman Empire and its surrogate, the theocracy of the Pharisees.

That being said, there is another variety of so-called "Christians" that
constitutes an equally extreme polar opponent to abdication theologians.
This other polar extreme is known as "Dominionism." While abdication
theologians construe the Scriptures as a rationale for complete
political abdication, Dominionists distort Genesis 1:28 to legitimize a
purely political agenda. Dominionists totally politicize the Gospel,
thus marrying Christianity to secular institutions. Once it is wedded to
secularism, Christianity adopts the same anthropocentric premises of
secularism. One of the anthropocentric premises that tend to pervade
secularized Christianity is the notion that man must save himself. This
was a core contention of communism, fascism, and other forms of
anti-theistic sociopolitical Utopianism. In the context of Dominionism,
this contention is given a marginally theistic interpretation: Man fully
embodies and facilitates the march of God on earth. However, there is
very little difference between the anti-theistic and theistic iterations
of this contention. In both instances, the adherent’s gaze is firmly
fixed on the ontological confines of this world.

As is the case with all Hegelian dialectics, the dialectic extremes of
abdication theology and Dominionist theology produce the same outcome:
totalitarianism. The abdication theologian surrenders to
totalitarianism, whereas the Dominionist actively creates
totalitarianism. Basically, Dominionism is a cult of neo-Gnostic
jihadists committed to goals that almost mirror the objectives of
earlier sociopolitical Utopians. Chris Hedges describes Dominionism as
follows:

"What the disparate sects of this movement, known as Dominionism, share
is an obsession with political power. A decades-long refusal to engage
in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been replaced by a
call for Christian "dominion" over the nation and, eventually, over the
earth itself. Dominionists preach that Jesus has called them to build
the kingdom of God in the here and now, whereas previously it was
thought we would have to wait for it. America becomes, in this militant
biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents
of America's Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of
Satan. (No pagination)"

There is a crucial distinction to be made between using the Scriptures
as a compass for making decisions within the political system and using
the Scriptures as a rationale for co-opting and controlling the
political system. In Vengeance is Ours: The Church in Dominion, Albert
Dager synopsizes the three basic tenets upon which this militarized form
of Christianity is premised:

"1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation
of Adam and Eve; 2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back
from Satan; 3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has
taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s governmental and social
institutions. (87)"

Thus, Jesus' kingdom is reduced to a secular government established by
and maintained through secular power. While secular progressives cite
Dominionism as a violation of the separation of church and state, it
actually represents the subsumption of the church by the state.
Dominionism empowers temporal machinations. Political, social, and
military powers attain ascendancy under the rubric of maintaining the
Dominionist government. Ultimately, the State is apotheosized. Again,
this was an objective of earlier sociopolitical Utopians. That this
particular strain of Utopianism has a marginally theistic gloss is
inconsequential. Dominionism represents but one more permutation of
sociopolitical Utopianism. This contention is reinforced by
Dominionism’s inherently neo-Gnostic character.

Unholy Warriors: Dominionism’s Neo-Gnostic Jihad

The neo-Gnostic character of Dominionism is underscored by its mandate
for Dominionists to "build the kingdom of God in the here and now." Such
a mandate reconceptualizes the Eschaton (i.e., "end of days") as a
purely immanent event. "Immanence" is a term derived from the Latin in
manere, which means "to remain within" ("Immanence," no pagination).
Likewise, the Dominionists’ Eschaton purely indwells the ontological
plane of the physical universe. The practice of immanentization finds
its conceptual basis with the Trinitarian symbolism of Joachim of Fiore.
Historian Eric Voegelin expands on Joachim’s symbolism:

"Joachim of Flora broke with the Augustinian conception of a Christian
society when he applied the symbol of the Trinity to the course of
history.... In his trinitarian eschatology Joachim created the aggregate
of symbols which govern the self-interpretation of modern political
society to this day.... The first of these symbols is the conception of
history as a sequence of three ages, of which the third age is
intelligibly the final Third Realm.... As variations of this symbol are
recognizable the humanistic and encyclopedist periodization of history
into ancient, medieval and modern history; Turgot's and Comte's theory
of a sequence of theological, metaphysical and scientific phases;
Hegel's dialectic of the three stages of freedom and self-reflective
spiritual fulfillment; the Marxian dialectic of the three states of
primitive communism, class society, and final Communism; and, finally,
the National Socialist symbol of the Third Realm. (111-12)"

Immanentization stemmed the Gnostic derision for faith. Salvation,
according to Gnosticism, was achieved through gnosis (knowledge). Human
reason was apotheosized and the cognitive powers of man became the chief
facilitator of his salvation. This contention rejected the Christian
mandate to "walk by faith and not by the sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).
Thus, the Gnostic sought to make transcendent concepts intelligible to
the rational mind. To gratify their anthropocentric hubris, the Gnostics
reconceptualized objects of faith as objects of immanent experience.
Voegelin explains:

"The attempt at immanentizing the meaning of existence is fundamentally
an attempt at bringing our knowledge of transcendence into a firmer grip
than the cognitio fidei, the cognition of faith, will afford, and the
Gnostic experiences offer this firmer grip insofar as they are an
expansion of the soul to the point where God is drawn into the existence
of man. (124)"

Yet, for mortals, the immanentization of the transcendent was and is a
metaphysical impossibility. That which is not immanent cannot be
arbitrarily made immanent. The more that Gnostics attempted to
immanentize objects of faith, the more bowdlerized the metaphysical
concepts of the transcendent realm became. This metaphysical conundrum
is exemplified by the fallacy stemming from the immanentization of the
Eschaton:

"From the Joachitic immanentization, a theoretical problem arises which
occurs neither in classic antiquity nor in orthodox Christianity, that
is, the problem of an adios in history.... There is no eidos of history
because the eschatological supernature is not a nature in the
philosophical, immanent case. The problem of an eidos in history, hence,
arises only when Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes
immanentized. Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however,
is a theoretical fallacy. Things are not things, nor do they have
essences, by arbitrary declaration. The course of history as a whole is
no object of experience; history has no eidos, because the course of
history extends into the unknown future. The meaning of history, thus,
is an illusion; and this illusory eidos is created by treating a symbol
of faith as if it were a proposition concerning an object of immanent
experience. (120)"

The Dominionist mandate to "build the kingdom of God in the here and
now" merely reiterates the Gnostic ambition to draw God "into the
existence of man." Like the Gnostics, Dominionists are not content with
the limited knowledge of the transcendent afforded by the cognitio
fidei. In Dominionist theology, objects of faith are reconceptualized as
objects of immanent experience. This includes the Eschaton, which the
Dominionist immanentizes by conducting a political coup.

Essentially, the Dominionist rejects Christ's admonition to "walk by
faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). While Dominionists might claim
to have faith, their aspiration to build God's kingdom themselves
betrays their lack of faith in the Lord's ability to fulfill His own
will. In true anthropocentric fashion, the Dominionist becomes the will
of God in toto. The Dominionist, not God, makes the kingdom come and the
kingdom comes through purely secular institutions and political
machinations.

Dominionism eviscerates Christianity. It transplants all of the
transcendent objects of Christian faith within the ontological plane of
the physical universe. Thus, Christianity is reduced to little more than
a revolutionary ideology closely akin to communism and other forms of
sociopolitical Utopianism. Ironically, most of the sociopolitical
Utopian movements of history have been premised upon the rejection of
the traditional theistic conception of God and the Gnostic doctrine of
self-salvation. Although Dominionists speak about God, salvation, and
faith, their notion of such concepts is couched in neo-Gnostic
immanentism and sociopolitical Utopianism. To paraphrase the apostle
Paul, they have a form of godliness, but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5).

Dominionism and the Enlightenment: The Ominous Parallels

Eventually, the eschatological vision of Gnostic immanentization was
codified as revolutionary doctrine by the early sociopolitical Utopians
of the Enlightenment. The Gnostic trappings of the Enlightenment are
demonstrable in Condorcet’s "doctrine of a coming Utopia, where
indefinite progress would bring forth a ‘natural salvation’ of plenty
and immortality" (Goeringer, no pagination). Condorcet's doctrine of
"natural salvation" merely reiterated the Gnostic doctrine of
self-salvation. The Enlightenment also shared Gnosticism's veneration of
God’s chief opponent. In The Hypostasis of the Archons, an Egyptian
Gnostic text, the serpent in Eden is portrayed as humanity’s benevolent
"Instructor" and "incognito savior" (Raschke 27). Of course, Revelation
12:9 and 20:2 identifies the serpent as Satan, the Adversary of both God
and man. Meanwhile, the Hypostasis caricatures Jehovah as "the archon of
arrogance" (27). Likewise, the Enlightenment depicted the Devil as man’s
liberator and God as the oppressive force of superstition. However, the
sociopolitical Utopians of the Enlightenment would exalt Satan under his
original appellation, Lucifer. Conrad Goeringer elaborates:

"If the bible was the holy book of the Christian enlightenment, then the
Encyclopedia was the inspiration of the Enlightenment. Here was a
compendium of human knowledge dealing with arts, sciences mechanics and
philosophy which swelled to some 36 volumes by 1780. Begun by the
Atheist Diderot in 1751, the Encyclopedia bore the imprints of Voltaire,
Montesque, Rousseau, Buffon, Turgot and others. Gracing the title page
of Diderot's compendium in the first edition was a drawing of Lucifer,
symbol of light and rebellion, standing beside the masonic symbols of
square and compass. (No pagination)

This veneration of the Devil under his original angelic title
constituted the religion of Luciferianism. Like some varieties of
Satanism, Luciferianism did not depict the devil as a literal
metaphysical entity. Lucifer only symbolized the cognitive powers of
man. He was the embodiment of science and reason. It was the
Luciferian's religious conviction that these two facilitative forces
would dethrone the "superstitious" institutions of God and apotheosize
man. This re-conceptualization of Lucifer reiterated the theme of
Gnostic immanentization. Lucifer, whom traditional Christianity regards
as a spiritual entity, was rendered purely immanent. No longer did
Lucifer reside outside the ontological plane of the physical universe.
Now, he was bodied forth by the human mind, which Enlightenment
adherents believed to be a purely corporeal entity."

Diderot’s inclusion of Masonic symbols on the title page of Encyclopedia
was quite appropriate. Luciferian thought permeated the early Masonic
Lodge. In Morals and Dogma, 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike expresses
unabashed praise for Lucifer:

"LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the
Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears
the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or
selfish Souls? Doubt it not. (321)"

Freemasonry, which enjoyed a certain degree of prominence during the
Enlightenment, would play a significant role in disseminating
Luciferianism on the popular level as secular humanism. Basically,
secular humanism qualifies as an anthropocentric religion and its
central precept is synopsized by the Protagorean dictum: "Man is the
measure of all things." Whittaker Chambers, former member of the
communist underground in America, provides an eloquent summation of
secular humanism:

"Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its
promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of
the knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.'" (Qutd. in Baker 206)

This anthropocentric religion was a new Gnosticism that envisaged the
manifestation of the Eschaton within the immanent cosmos. Commenting on
this new strain of Gnosticism, Wolfgang Smith writes:

"In place of an Eschaton which ontologically transcends the confines of
this world, the modern Gnostic envisions an End within history, an
Eschaton, therefore, which is to be realized within the ontological
plane of this visible universe. (238; emphasis added)."

The Enlightenment would reach its violent nadir with the bloody French
Revolution, which would provide the blueprint for all modern socialist
revolutions. Communism, fascism, and other competing forms of socialism
proffer a heaven on earth. In this sense, all modern socialist
revolutionaries qualify as secular Gnostics:

"In this century, with the presentation of traditional religious
positions in secular form, there has emerged a secular Gnosticism beside
the other great secular religions--the mystical union of Fascism, the
apocalypse of Marxist dialectic, the Earthly City of social democracy.
The secular Gnosticism is almost never recognized for what it is, and it
can exist alongside other convictions almost unperceived. (Webb 418)"

The codification of Gnosticism as revolutionary doctrine produced
secular movements that, sociologically, behaved like religious
movements. The religious character of these secular movements is made
evident by the "new reality" that they sought to tangibly enact. James
H. Billington describes this "new reality":

"The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently
simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American
federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing
eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum. In search of
primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian
antiquity--adopting pagan names like "Anaxagoras" Chaumette and
"Anacharsis" Cloots, idealizing above all the semimythic Pythagoras as
the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in
prime numbers, geometric forms, and the higher harmonies of music. (6)"

It is very interesting that such a "radically secular" reality would be
so preoccupied with the "occult simplicity" and "pagan names" of
"pre-Christian antiquity." Yet, as sociologist William Sims Bainbridge
observes, such occult proclivities are the natural corollaries of
secularism:

"Secularization does not mean a decline in the need for religion, but
only a loss of power by traditional denominations. Studies of the
geography of religion show that where the churches become weak, cults
and occultism explode to fill the spiritual vacuum. ("Religions for a
Galactic Civilization," no pagination) "

One of the occult personages that would remain as a fixture of the early
revolutionary faith was Lucifer. However, he would assume yet another
title. The term Lucifer, as translated by St. Jerome from the original
Hebrew Helel ("bright one"), shares the same meaning as Prometheus who
brought fire to humanity ("Lucifer," no pagination). The mythical
character of Prometheus was central to the Utopian vision of early
socialist revolutionaries. James A. Billington explains:

"A recurrent mythic theme for revolutionaries-- early romantics, the
young Marx, the Russians of Lenin’s time--was Prometheus, who stole fire
from the gods for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of
revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general belief that
science would lead men out of darkness into light. (6; emphasis added)"

The Promethean contention that science was the lantern guiding man to
illumination was vintage scientism. Scientism, which should not be
confused with legitimate science, is the belief that the investigational
methods of science are essential to all other fields of study. The
modern mind, chronocentric as it is, might view such epistemological
imperialism as desirable. However, as a system of quantification,
science can only concern itself with quantifiable entities. Because they
defy quantification, concepts like human dignity and liberty are
precluded from a purely scientific outlook.

Nevertheless, the scientistic approach to governance was a hallmark of
the Promethean revolutionaries. Friedrich Engels described Marx’s theory
as "scientific socialism" ("Scientific socialism," no pagination).
Engels selected this term because both science and Marxism gave
epistemological primacy to observable phenomenon (no pagination). Marx’s
emphasis upon radical empiricism was presaged by Henri Saint-Simon’s
physiological interpretation of the state, which extended the doctrine
of sense certainty "into the altogether new field of social relations"
(Billington 212). Adherents of Saint-Simon’s philosophy contended that
"the key to diagnosing and curing the ills of humanity lay in an
objective understanding of the physiological realities that lay behind
all thinking and feeling" (212). Following this physiological
interpretation of governance to its logical ends, Saint-Simon developed
the precursor to Marx’s "scientific socialism":

"Believing that the scientific method should be applied to the body of
society as well as to the individual body, Saint-Simon proceeded to
analyze society in terms of its physiological components: classes. He
never conceived of economic classes in the Marxian sense, but his
functional class analysis prepared the way for Marx. (213)"

Saint-Simon’s work has been described as the prescription for Sir
Francis Bacon’s prophetic vision of a technocratic society (Fischer 69).
Technocratic governance, or Technocracy, is a governmental system where
scientists and technicians act as the sole decision-making body. This
inherently anti-democratic concept originated within esoteric circles.
Sir Francis Bacon developed the original model for Technocracy in his
book, The New Atlantis. Published in 1627, The New Atlantis was adorned
with the symbols of occult Freemasonry and presented the Rosicrucian
mandate for the formation of an "Invisible College" (Howard 74-75).
Bacon himself was a member of the secret Order of the Helmet and, some
allege, a Grand Master of the secret Rosicrucian Order (74). The Utopia
presented by Bacon in The New Atlantis was "a pure Technocratic society"
(Fischer 66-67). The philosopher kings of Plato’s Republic were to be
replaced by a "technical elite" (66-67). Scientists and technicians
would circumvent conflicting political interests, giving rise to an
apolitical bureaucracy.

Technocratic ideas constituted a portion of the conceptual and
philosophical foundation for modern socialist totalitarian governance.
Of course, a majority of socialist totalitarian regimes that have
populated modernity have been overtly hostile towards theistic faiths,
particularly Christianity. This derision for theistic faiths is
attributable to the characteristic scientism of technocratic theory.
Because the soul, angels, demons, and God Himself are neither
quantifiably or empirically demonstrable entities, they have no place
within a technocratic society. Science becomes the new expositor of
miracles, revelation, and truth. In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous
Huxley described this scientistic form of governance:

"The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects
with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries.
Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the
result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and
will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a
thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. (116)"

Paradoxical though it may seem, this is the occult, anti-theistic,
anti-Christian tradition from whence Dominionism actually hails. Secular
progressives often cite Dominionism as a "war against the
Enlightenment." However, a comparative examination of Dominionism and
the revolutionary faith of the Enlightenment reveals more parallels than
either side would care to admit.

Interestingly, Dominionism slightly inverts the traditional
sociopolitical Utopian formula. Instead of being a secular movement with
all of the sociological trappings of a religion, Dominionism is a
religion with all of the sociological trappings of a secular movement.
Nevertheless, like its sociopolitical Utopian predecessors, Dominionism
pursues the neo-Gnostic objective of immanentizing the Eschaton. For the
Dominionist, Jesus’ kingdom is a secular government established and
maintained through secular institutions.

Dominionism also gives credence to the Gnostic doctrine of
self-salvation. According to Dominionist theology, Jesus is either
unwilling or unable to return to earth. If this is true, then Christ’s
role as Savior is nullified. After all, the Scriptures state that
Christ’s return will represent the final installment in humanity’s
salvation. Hebrews 9:28 declares: "So Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation" (emphasis added). According to
Dominionism, man, not God, shall make His Kingdom come. Thus, the final
installation of humanity’s salvation is left in the hands of man
himself. In fact, John Hagee, a prominent Dominionist, has openly
rejected Jesus as the Messiah in his latest book In Defense of Israel,
("Jesus did not come to be the Messiah?" no pagination). Instead, Hagee
totally politicizes Jesus’ mission and characterizes Him as an
"insurrectionist" (no pagination). Thus, Jesus becomes little more than
a role model for revolutionaries.

Re-sculpting Jesus according to revolutionary designs is another
Dominionist practice that can be traced back to the Enlightenment. Adam
Weishaupt, an Enlightenment thinker and the founder of the infamous
Bavarian Illuminati, presented his adherents with another Christ. This
Christ preached more of a Jacobin gospel, advocating a radical Utopian
revolution that would instantiate a heavenly kingdom within the
ontological confines of this world.

The Illuminist conception of Christ was purely socialistic in character.
Weishaupt himself claimed that " if Jesus preaches contempt of riches,
He wishes to teach us the reasonable use of them and prepare for the
community of goods introduced by Him" (Webster, Secret Societies and
Subversive Movements, no pagination). This sounds more like Marxism made
flesh, not the Word made flesh. Of course, all of the stated goals of
the Illuminati virtually mirrored the objectives presented in the
Communist Manifesto. Moreover, the French Revolution, which represented
the nadir of the Enlightenment, supplied a working model for all
subsequent socialist revolutionary movements. Dominionism is just one
more installment in this ideological continuum.

Like the Dominionist Christ, the Illuminist Christ was a totally secular
Messiah. His mission was a political one, not a spiritual one. In
regards to Jesus, Weishaupt states:

"The secret preserved through the Disciplinam Arcani, and the aim
appearing through all His words and deeds, is to give back to men their
original liberty and equality. . . . Now one can understand how far
Jesus was the Redeemer and Saviour of the world. (Webster, Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, no pagination)"

In keeping with his esoteric heritage, Weishaupt's Christ was an
obscurantist and a secret teacher of older occult doctrines:

"No one . . . has so cleverly concealed the high meaning of His
teaching, and no one finally has so surely and easily directed men on to
the path of freedom as our great master Jesus of Nazareth. This secret
meaning and natural consequence of His teaching He hid completely, for
Jesus had a secret doctrine, as we see in more than one place of the
Scriptures. (Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, no
pagination)"

As a product of the Enlightenment, the Illuminati exhibited the same
sort of scientism that was characteristic of that period. In accordance
with their strident scientific materialism, Weishaupt and his fellow
Illuminists presented a Christ that was bereft of any supernatural
qualities. The Illuminist Christ was a technocratic Avatar that preached
a Gnostic gospel of self-salvation. This doctrine of self-salvation held
aloft human reason and the cognitive powers of man as the new
incarnation of revelatory knowledge, a scientistic version of gnosis
so-to-speak. John Robison explains:

"Jesus Christ is represented as the enemy of superstitious observances,
and the assertor of the Empire of Reason and of Brotherly love, and his
death and memory as dear to mankind. This evidently paves the way for
Weishaupt's Christianity. (No pagination)"

Weishaupt's Illuminist colleague, Baron von Knigge, reiterates this
scientistic portrait of Jesus:

"Jesus Christ established no new Religion; he would only set Religion
and Reason in their ancient rights. For this purpose he would unite men
in a common bond. He would fit them for this by spreading a just
morality, by enlightening the understanding, and by assisting the mind
to shake off all prejudices. He would teach all men, in the first place,
to govern themselves. Rulers would then be needless, and equality and
liberty would take place without any revolution, by the natural and
gentle operation of reason and expediency. This great Teacher allows
himself to explain every part of the Bible in conformity to these
purposes; and he forbids all wrangling among his scholars, because every
man may there find a reasonable application to his peculiar doctrines.
Let this be true or false, it does not signify. This was a simple
Religion, and it was so far inspired; but the minds of his hearers were
not fitted for receiving these doctrines. I told you, says he, but you
could not bear it. Many therefore were called, but few were chosen."
(Qutd. In Robison, no pagination)"

Instantiating the Kingdom of God was never man’s responsibility and to
assert otherwise is to assert that God is no longer sovereign. Man
becomes the center of the universe and beyond. In effect, Dominionism
affirms the dictum of Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things."
This is vintage anthropocentricism, which was a hallmark of the
Enlightenment. Randall Herbert Balmer, a professor of American religious
history, has correctly identified the anthropocentric elements of
Dominionism ("Dominionism," no pagination).

Moreover, the Dominionist mandate to immanentize the Eschaton rejects
cognitio fidei. Man can no longer have faith for Christ’s return. He
must transform God’s Kingdom, which is an object of faith, into an
object of immanent experience. Dominionists cannot "walk by faith, not
by sight." To paraphrase Voegelin, the Dominionist must draw the
transcendental elements of Christianity into a firmer grip than the
cognitio fidei will afford.

Christian Reconstructionism is considered an example of Dominionism in
reformed theology ("Dominionism," no pagination). Christian
Reconstructionism originated with Rousas John Rushdoony, a Calvinist
theologian, philosopher, and historian ("Rousas John Rushdoony," no
pagination). Rushdoony argued that the American Revolution owed nothing
to the Enlightenment (no pagination). Simultaneously, Rushdoony’s
Christian Reconstructionism teaches cessationism, which rejects the
operation of the charismatic gifts in this modern era ("Dominionism," no
pagination). The irony becomes clear when one considers the fact that
cessationism is premised upon a "rationalistic, Enlightenment-era,
unbiblical notion of ‘miracle’" ("Cessationism," no pagination). Indeed,
the rejection of miracles, along with all supernatural and
supra-sensible phenomenons, was a hallmark of Enlightenment rationalism.
David Hume, who was one of the Enlightenment’s leading theoreticians,
argued against the existence of miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding. In this tract of radical empiricism, Hume defines a
miracle as "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition
of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent" (no
pagination). Yet, Hume argues, the natural order is governed by laws
established by "a firm and unalterable experience" (no pagination).
Experientially, miracles boast fewer witnesses than natural phenomena.
Thus, Hume asserts, the evidence against miracles will always outweigh
the evidence for them:

"Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course
of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should
die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than
any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a
miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never
been observed in any age or country. (No pagination)"

Though this argument has come to comprise the intellectual arsenal of
both atheists and cessationists alike, it is not as sound as it may
seem. George Campbell, a fellow Enlightenment thinker, revealed that
Hume’s argument was circular. Hume’s argument is premised upon the
contention that natural laws are affirmed by the testimony of
percipients everywhere without exception. However, Campbell observes
that such testimony qualifies as exceptionless only if one completely
precludes the occurrence of miracles (no pagination). Nevertheless, the
Enlightenment-era rejection of miracles was adopted by Rushdoony and
became a centerpiece of Christian Reconstructionism.

Interestingly enough, the rejection of miracles was central to the
authoritarian society proposed by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes,
who was a radical empiricist and materialist, rejected divine revelation
on the grounds that such experiences could imperil so-called "civil
order." Hobbes begins with a critique of all claimants to supernatural
revelation:

"When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately or by mediation
of another man, to whom He had formerly spoken by Himself immediately.
How God speaketh to a man immediately may be understood by those well
enough to whom He hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood
by another is hard, if not impossible, to know. For if a man pretend to
me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I
make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce
to oblige me to believe it. (No pagination)"

While Hobbes’ argument totters perilously on the edge of agnosticism, he
never firmly commits himself to rejecting the Scriptures. Hobbes continues:

"So that it is manifest that the teaching of the religion which God hath
established, and the showing of a present miracle, joined together, were
the only marks whereby the Scripture would have a true prophet. (No
pagination)"

Hobbes argues that the cessation of miracles upholds both the validity
of the Scriptures and the divine right of the "governors of earth":

"Seeing therefore miracles now cease, we have no sign left whereby to
acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private
man; nor obligation to give ear to any doctrine, farther than it is
conformable to the Holy Scriptures , which since the time of our Saviour
supply the place and sufficiently recompense the want of all other
prophecy; and from which, by wise and learned interpretation, and
careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge
of our duty both to God and man, without enthusiasm, or supernatural
inspiration, may easily be deduced. And this Scripture is it out of
which I am to take the principles of my discourse concerning the rights
of those that are the supreme governors on earth of Christian
Commonwealths, and of the duty of Christian subjects towards their
sovereigns. (No pagination)"

How convenient! Thus, Hobbes manages to satisfy both his materialistic
and authoritarian propensities with a single argument. Hobbes was not
the only authoritarian whose so-called "civil order" was threatened by
miracles. Both communists and fascists expressed a characteristic
derision for miracles and the supernatural. Such phenomenon defied
quantification and, as such, posed a serious challenge to the
scientistic suppositions of scientific socialism. Likewise, Christian
Reconstructionism relies on cessationism because miracles, signs, and
wonders could potentially challenge the political leaders and
machinations that it seeks to enshrine.

As a derivation of Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism exhibits a
strand of cessationist thought. In cessationism, the Believer is
presented with a deistic Christ. Either unwilling to or incapable of
exercising His powers in the affairs of man, the cessationist God is
tantamount to an absentee landlord. Likewise, the Dominionist Christ is
either unwilling to or incapable of establishing His own kingdom. Thus,
it is the Dominionist's duty to make "His Kingdom come." In true
neo-Gnostic fashion, the Dominionist must redirect his or her complete
attention towards the ontological plane of the physical universe. After
all, the corrupted creation must be transformed before the Dominionist
Christ can reappear. Dominionism merely reiterates the dictum of
communism, fascism, and other strains of secular Gnosticism: "We must
save ourselves!"

It is true that some Dominionists are not purely cessationists. In fact,
some Dominionists are also charismatics. According to Sarah Leslie, the
Dominionist recruitment strategy operates in a "dialectical fashion,"
targeting both charismatics and more traditional denominations (no
pagination). However, the postmillenial eschatology of Dominionism
exhibits the same sort of deistic overtones that are prevalent within
cessationism. Both the Dominionist and the cessationist proffer an
absentee landlord as God. The logical conclusion of such deistic
thinking is that the Lord will not move. Instead, the hand of man must
move. Such a conclusion is not too far from the contentions of earlier
sociopolitical Utopians. Many sociopolitical Utopians were either deists
or outright atheists. Convinced that God was either an incomprehensible
irrelevancy or just plain fantasy, these political radicals promoted a
"heaven" of their own. That "heaven" could only be obtained through
revolution.

Not surprisingly, the Promethean faith of early socialist
revolutionaries was accompanied by an eschatology that closely resembles
Dominionism's postmillenial eschatology. The Promethean radical's
eschatology was underpinned by "the more pointed, millennial assumption
that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set"
(Billington 6). Billington states that the tumult of the "French
upheaval" birthed a "solar myth of the revolution" (6). This "solar
myth" contended that "the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness
would vanish forever" (6). This ideational contagion became embedded "at
a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real
and produced a new reality" (6). This "new reality,' which was to be
created by the hand of man himself, was symbolically encapsulated within
"an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum"
(6). Again, the theme of an earthly kingdom constructed by and
maintained through purely secular power becomes prevalent. Dominionism
merely represents another variant of the sociopolitical Utopian
aspiration to create a Novus Ordo Seclorum, albeit with an ostensibly
Christian veneer.

Christian Reconstructionism is the "most prominent formulation" of
Dominionism ("Dominionism," no pagination). Christian
Reconstructionism's authoritarian character is evidenced by the fact
that it posits Calvinism as the "basis for personal regeneration that is
required to change people before changes occur in the broader culture"
("Christian Reconstructionism," no pagination). Calvinism promoted a
doctrine of predestination, which presented the following contentions:

That all humans are, inherently wicked and offend God;

That there is an elect that God chose to be saved regardless of their
actions and how deserving;

That Jesus died just for those special elect, not for everyone;

That once God has chosen an elect they are saved by irresistible grace
no matter what;

That these elect or Saints cannot fall from grace once saved. (Millegan 405)

According to Calvinism, there is only abundant life for some. Jesus
Christ did not "set the captives" free. He merely affirmed the elitist
pedigree of a few. In Haeckelian terms, supernatural selection is
"aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word." The vast majority of
humanity can only expect death, both physical and spiritual,
irrespective of the individual's capacity for accepting for Christ as
savior. With its mandate for a theocratic state ruled by a select few,
Dominionism echoes such elitist sentiments.

Given the prevalence of Dominionist thinking in the Bush White House,
this thread of Calvinist themes becomes even more significant. George W.
Bush is a member of Skull and Bones, a secret society headquartered at
Yale University. Yale was established and administrated by Calvinist
clerics (Millegan 417). Bonesmen like Bush could possibly be guided by
"Hyper-Calvinist beliefs of Hell, predestination, and infallible
salvation mixed with potent duality of Western Ritual Magic tradition"
(419). If such beliefs pervade the present administration, then it is
only natural for the Bush White House to be so amicable to the
Dominionist agenda.

The Bush White House's acceptance of several Dominionist principles
represents another point of convergence between Dominionism and the
Enlightenment. One of the factions that has enjoyed political ascendancy
under the Bush Administration is the neoconservative wing of the
Establishment. The religious right, which is a breeding ground for
Dominionism, has wholeheartedly embraced this wing of the Establishment.
Randall Balmer observes: "The leaders of the religious right have led
their sheep astray from the gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel
of neoconservative ideology and into the maw of the Republican Party"
(no pagination). This embrace is especially paradoxical in light of
neoconservativism's Enlightenment pedigree. James Kurth identifies
neoconservativism as a continuation of the Enlightenment tradition:

"From their origins (be it as followers of Leon Trotsky or of Leo
Strauss), neoconservatives have seen the Christian tradition as an
alien, even a threatening, one. As for the classical tradition, their
view of it has been formed by the decidedly untraditional interpretation
of classical philosophy given by Strauss. The only Western tradition
that the neoconservatives actually want to defend is the Enlightenment.
They have wanted to defend it against attacks emanating from
postmodernists, and in recent years, they have wanted to advance it in
the rest of the world with the establishment of a kind of American
empire. This latter is not a conservative project but a radical and
revolutionary one. For the most part, it might be said that, with
friends like the neoconservatives, Western civilization does not need
enemies. (No pagination; emphasis added)"

Numerous scholars have identified the ideological parallels between
neoconservativism and the violent, revolutionary wing of the
Enlightenment. Most notably, Claes G. Ryns exhaustively enumerates the
various similarities between radical, Illuminist-bred Jacobins and
neoconservatives in his book, America The Virtuous. Moreover, Lawrence
Wilkerson, who helped Colin Powell assemble the highly politicized
dossier against Iraq, characterized the neoconservatives as Jacobins:

"They are not neo-cons. They are not new conservatives. They're
Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien
Robespierre. And to say that these people are dead, dormant or lying
quiescent is not encouraging because there are enough of them left. And
it's going to be incumbent on the rest of us, in this country at least,
to watch these trends and make sure that their ugly head doesn't rise up
and cause more problems in the future. (Mascolo, no pagination)"

Understandably, the religious right’s alliance with neoconservativism
appears paradoxical. However, in light of Dominionism’s neo-Gnostic,
Utopian trappings, the alliance is more appropriate than it seems. The
resulting aberration from this hellish union is a violent, revolutionary
movement with the potential of instantiating the same sort of
technocratic Utopia envisioned by Enlightenment luminaries like
Maximilien Robespierre, Condorcet, and the infamous Adam Weishaupt. In
essence, Dominionism is a theistic incarnation of the French Revolution
that proffers the kingdom of a Jacobin Christ. While secular
progressives routinely debate with rhetoricians from the religious
right, the ideological skirmishes between the two are superficial at
best. Both polar extremes have transformed the culture war into a
Hegelian dialectic. The synthesis of these two ideational entities is a
scientific dictatorship.

Political Prostitution: McCain Woos the Dominionists

One organization that has been described as a Dominionist machination is
the Council for National Policy ("Taking Over the Republican Party," no
pagination). David D. Kirkpatrick describes the Council for National
Policy (CNP) as follows:

"The council was founded in 1981, just as the modern conservative
movement began its ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early Christian
conservative organizer and the best-selling author of the ''Left
Behind'' novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming, was a founder. His
partners included Paul Weyrich, another Christian conservative political
organizer who also helped found the Heritage Foundation. They said at
the time that they were seeking to create a Christian conservative
alternative to what they believed was the liberalism of the Council on
Foreign Relations. (No pagination)"

This description is terribly incomplete. What Kirkpatrick fails to
mention (either out of ignorance or partisan bias) is the fact that the
first Governing Board of the CNP had three CFR members: Dr. Edward
Teller, George F. Gilder, and Guy Vander Jagt (Aho, pagination). Two
later CNP members, Arnaud De Borchgrave and J. Peter Grace, were also
CFR members (no pagination). Given these dubious associations, the CNP’s
opposition to the CFR would appear to be somewhat disingenuous.

The CNP’s conservative veneer is even less convincing. One of the chief
financiers of Paul Weyrich’s Heritage Foundation is Richard Mellon
Scaife. Washington Post journalists Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy
reveal Scaife’s ties to this so-called "right-wing" organization:

"The Heritage Foundation became an important part of the right's
community-building efforts. Scaife first contributed to Heritage in
1974. Soon afterward, using money from Scaife, Heritage established its
resource bank, a compilation of conservative organizations, which from
1982 was published in the Directory of Public Policy Organizations, a
guide to the new right-wing establishment. The current edition lists 300
groups; 111 have received grants from Scaife, 76 of them in 1998.
Heritage, organized by former staff assistants to Republican lawmakers
whose goal was to influence both Congress and the news media with a
stream of brief, meaty position papers on issues of the day, became
Scaife's favorite beneficiary. When it began to make a mark in the
mid-1970s, Joseph Coors, the beer magnate, was commonly credited as its
chief financial patron. Coors did put up the first $250,000. But within
two years, according to Heritage officials, Scaife had given more than
twice as much, and he has kept on giving ever since – more than $23
million in all, or about $34 million in inflation-adjusted, current
dollars. At Heritage the joke was, "Coors gives six-packs; Scaife gives
cases." With Scaife's early contributions, Heritage could thrive. In
1976, Heritage's third year of operation, Scaife gave $420,000, or 42
percent of the foundation's total income of $1,008,557. This early
support was "absolutely critical," said the president of the foundation,
Edwin J. Feulner Jr. Scaife continues to give generously to Heritage –
$1.3 million in 1998. But Heritage took in $43 million last year, so his
gift represented just 3 percent of its income. (No pagination)"

While Scaife has financially supported ostensibly conservative
organizations like the Heritage Foundation, he has also donated
considerable sums of money to left-wing affiliations. These include
Planned Parenthood:

"Scaife has long favored abortion rights, to the chagrin of many of
those he has supported. In the first years of his philanthropy he stuck
to a pattern set by his mother and sister and gave millions to Planned
Parenthood and other population control groups, though most such giving
stopped in the 1970s. (No pagination)"

Why would Scaife finance both conservative and liberal organizations?
More importantly, why would CNP member Weyrich accept money from someone
who openly financed causes that most Christians find morally
objectionable? These actions bespeak a decidedly pragmatic
Weltanschauung among prominent CNP members and their associates.
Ultimately, the CNP is neither Christian nor conservative. It is just
another conduit for elitist interests. The organization’s façade is
designed to draw in Christians and conservatives. Thoroughly seduced by
the CNP’s traditional veneer, these parties can be mobilized in support
of elitist agendas.

Just how much political capital does the CNP wield? Evidently, the
organization has enough power to attract the sole Republic candidate for
the 2008 presidential election: John McCain. In hopes of garnering
Dominionist support for his presidential bid, McCain addressed the CNP
in March 2008 (Hallow, "McCain courts top conservatives," no
pagination). McCain’s appearance at the CNP was considered a flop by
many of the attendees (no pagination). Those critical of McCain included
CNP participants Janice Crouse and Richard A. Viguerie (no pagination).
However, Crouse stated that McCain might receive the support he was
looking for because he was considered the only real viable alternative
to Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton (no pagination). McCain may begin to
cater to the desires of the CNP and other Dominionists as a means of
securing victory over his Democrat competitor.

Covert Operations and Dominionist Activism

Dominionists are not content to leave other people alone. Their doctrine
requires that they impose their Utopian vision upon the rest of
humanity. Dominionist activism can take many different forms. One of the
most sinister manifestations of Dominionist activism is covert
operations. One Dominionist involved in the covert realm is CNP
participant Richard Viguerie. Viguerie was also a member of Korean
intelligence agent Tongsun Park’s Georgetown Club (Trento 171). Park was
a major player in the Koreagate scandal that shook Congress in the 1970s
(171). Viguerie was collaborating with Park and the Korean CIA at the
time (171).

Viguerie became deeper entrenched in the covert world in 1979 when
Thomas Clines, the former CIA covert operations agent, moved the
Egyptian American Transport and Services Corporation (EATSCO) to 7777
Leesburg Pike, the home of Viguerie Company (171). The EATSCO offices
were Viguerie’s tenants (171). EATSCO was part of a private intelligence
network that was created to provide the CIA’s covert activity branch,
known as the Directorate of Operations, with a means of evading
Congressional oversight. 7777 Leesburg Pike became the home of the
private CIA (172). Many of Viguerie’s tenants were operatives of Edwin
Wilson, the architect of the private intelligence network (171-72). It
should come as little surprise that many people that fall within the
Dominionist orbit, such as CNP participants Ollie North and John
Singlaub, have also been involved in some of the most infamous
intelligence crimes that make up a large portion of America’s secret
history. This may eventually cause the public to associate Christians
with the dark practitioners of deep politics. Doubtless, the activists
within the Dominionist camp will slip into the shadows while innocent
Christians suffer the backlash.

Theocratic Tyranny: Huckabee's Modest Proposal

At a public forum preceding the Michigan primary, presidential candidate
Mike Huckabee generated a considerable degree of controversy by
presenting a mandate for an ostensibly "biblical" renovation of the
Constitution. Journalist Domenico Montanaro recounts the presentation of
this mandate:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I
believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to
change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to
amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to
change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a
constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage
as between a man and a woman. (No pagination)"

At best, Huckabee’s proposal for the "biblical reform" of the
Constitution was unnecessary. The Constitution already meets "God’s
standards." It is premised upon the biblical principle of imago viva
Dei. Acknowledging man as a being made in the image of God, the
Constitution established a form of governance that would observe and
protect the rights that God had endowed upon humanity. Benjamin
Franklin, a signer of both the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence, declared: "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other
men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

It is true that Benjamin Franklin, along with some of the Founding
Fathers, was a deist. However, as is evidenced by this statement and the
content of the Freedom Documents, all of the Founding Fathers
acknowledged a transcendent moral law emanating from a transcendent
Creator. The immutability of this transcendent moral law was contingent
upon the immutability of the Author with which it originated. In Malachi
3:6, the Lord states: "I change not." Likewise, man’s rights "change
not." In the absence of an unchanging God, moral law is susceptible to
the flux of subjectivism and relativism. C.S. Lewis explains the dilemma
that this would pose for democratic governance:

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which
overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is
eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind
only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of
Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers,
educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside
his own creation. (81)"

Establishing a government that acknowledged "some objective moral law"
was precisely the goal of the American Revolution. John Quincy Adams,
the sixth President of the United States, eloquently voiced this
contention: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it
connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government
with the principles of Christianity." There is an important distinction
to be made here. The American Revolution instantiated a theocentric form
of governance, not a theocracy. While the Constitution was underpinned
by the biblical principle of imago viva Dei, it also acknowledged the
biblical concept of free will. Christ never coerced anyone to follow Him
and the life of faith was always a matter of choice. Thus, Americanism
made allowances for the coexistence of faiths and instantiated the
freedom of religion. In light of these facts, Huckabee’s mandate for
supposed "biblical" reforms was historically incoherent and unnecessary.

At worst, Huckabee’s mandate was an endorsement of some theocratic form
of totalitarianism. This fact was not lost on several of Huckabee’s
fellow Republicans. In National Review Online, Republican Lisa Schiffren
critiqued Huckabee’s call for "biblical" reform:

"Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more
religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation
of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU.
Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or
the desirability of abortion on demand. (No pagination)"

When a presidential candidate’s ideas alarm members of both the
so-called "left" and the so-called "right," it is clear that his
political aspirations demand some serious critical analysis. There is
good reason for people to be suspicious of Huckabee. His theocratic
rhetoric echoes the doctrines of Dominionism. Huckabee’s Dominionist
propensities are made evident by his adherence to neo-Confederate ideas.
Huckabee’s neo-Confederate sentiments came out on January 17, 2008, when
the former Arkansas Governor was addressing voters in South Carolina
(Fiegel, no pagination). Huckabee told his audience:

"I know what would happen if somebody comes to my state in Arkansas and
tells us what to do, it doesn't matter what it is, tell us how to run
our schools, tell us how to raise our kids, tell us what to do with our
flag — you want to come tell us what to do with the flag, we'd tell them
what to do with the pole. (No pagination)"

Huckabee repeated these remarks in a speech delivered to an audience in
Florence (no pagination). The bridge between neo-Confederate ideology
and Dominionism was built by Rousas John Rushdoony, the father of
Christian Reconstructionism. Many researchers claim that Christian
Reconstructionism is merely a type of Dominionism, citing the fact
Reconstructionists frequently use the term "dominion" ("Christian
Reconstructionism," no pagination). Rushdoony was heavily influenced by
the writings of Robert L. Dabney, the chaplain to Confederate General
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (Potok, no pagination). Dabney’s writings
portrayed the South as a highly moral and Godly society that was
unjustly oppressed by a decadent North (no pagination). Dabney’s
influence on Rushdoony can be seen in his book, Institute of Biblical
Law (no pagination). In that book, Rushdoony advocated segregation and
adamantly opposed interracial marriage (no pagination). As Rushdoony’s
influence spread into evangelical churches, the poison of Confederate
nationalism was injected into America’s Christian community (no
pagination). It should come as little surprise that the Dominionist
model of society is similar in many ways to the antebellum South.

This is truly ironic, given the fact that there is a body of evidence
that suggests that neo-Confederate ideology is merely a revival of
anti-Christian Celtic paganism. Neo-Confederates believe that the
establishment of a Confederate republic is not possible without a
revival of Anglo-Celtic culture (Pansler, no pagination).
Neo-Confederates also venerate Confederate Civil War Generals, a
practice that is very similar to the Celtic worship of warrior-gods (no
pagination). Dominionism’s compatibility with this modern variant of
paganism underscores the belief system’s anti-Christian character.

In addition to his neo-Confederate affinities, Huckabee also embraces
ideologues of the neo-Gnostic, sociopolitical Utopian tradition.
Arguably, globalism is a modern incarnation of the Gnostic aspiration to
immanentize the Eschaton. One of Huckabee’s selections for his White
House staff was an individual with an impeccable globalist pedigree. In
an interview on Wolf Blitzer’s Late Edition, Huckabee revealed that
Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass was one of his
"principal foreign policy advisors" ("Mike Huckabee's adviser is
president of the CFR, Richard N Haass," no pagination). The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) is an outgrowth of the Royal Institute of
International Affairs in England (Quigley 132). In turn, the Royal
Institute of International Affairs was birthed by the semisecret
organizations called Round Table Groups (132). Formed by a network of
adherents to the imperialistic vision of Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table
Groups were committed to the formation of a global government under
British rule. The CFR hails from this tradition, as is evidenced by the
organization’s advocacy of globalism and the subordination of all
nation-states to an omnipotent supra-national governmental entity. Of
course, such a state of affairs would mandate the weakening and eventual
obliteration of national sovereignty. Haass candidly recommends that
nations adopt just such a course of action. In an article in the Taipei
Times, Haas asserts:

"For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central
actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to
do what they want within their own territory but not within the
territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of
international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion. (No
pagination)"

According to Haass, the notion of national sovereignty must be
re-examined because the global stage is now occupied by a "larger number
of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely)
independent actors" (no pagination). These include non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), banks, private equity funds, global and regional
institutions, and even overtly criminal entities like drug cartels and
terrorists (no pagination). Haass asserts that, because the activities
of these supra-national entities have a definite impact on sovereign
states, the world requires "new mechanisms" to allow the participation
of "actors other than states" in both "regional and global governance"
(no pagination).

Citing national governments’ increased acquiescence to WTO rulings,
Haass also argues that "states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty
to world bodies if the international system is to function" (no
pagination). Presenting the Kyoto Protocol as another case in point,
Haass declares:

"All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are
to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the
increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and
across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars,
drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one
of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what
crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly
measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond
their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker
in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to
weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot
insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no
longer a sanctuary. (No pagination)"

Haass concludes that, while national sovereignty should be maintained as
an institution, it should be made more malleable. After all, if
parameters of national sovereignty are sufficiently pliable, then
globalization can continue unabated:

"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of
globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign
states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

"The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint
on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs
to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from
what global forces do to states and what governments do to their
citizens rather than from what states do to one another. (No pagination)"

Such a conception of sovereignty can be synopsized with one word:
pageantry. If the parameters of national sovereignty are elastic enough
to be circumvented by some supra-national authority, then national
sovereignty exists in name only. Certainly, sovereignty would still
exist, but only within supra-national entities that could enforce their
edicts with impunity. All of his euphemistic banter aside, Haass’
pedigree as CFR president betrays his elitist objectives. Such
objectives would have found a promising catalyst for implementation
within a Huckabee White House. Ultimately, the dismantling of America’s
national sovereignty and her amalgamation into a global government are
the sociopolitical manifestations of broader Utopian aspirations. They
are necessary steps in realizing the neo-Gnostic vision of a world where
the flux of history has been immobilized in a state of Utopian
permanence. Given the neo-Gnostic propensities of Dominionism, it comes
as little surprise that Huckabee would have surrounded himself with
those of the globalist persuasion.

Of course, Huckabee did not win the Republican nomination. Interestingly
enough, Huckabee partially blamed this failure on "the desire of
Christian leaders to be ‘kingmakers’" (Hallow, "Huckabee cites power of
‘kingmakers’," no pagination). Who were these aspiring "kingmakers" that
Huckabee blamed for his defeat? The failed presidential nominee elaborates:

"Rank-and-file evangelicals supported me strongly, but a lot of the
leadership did not," the former Arkansas governor says. "Let's face it,
if you're not going to be king, the next best thing is to be the
kingmaker. And if the person gets there without you, you become less
relevant."

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson backed Rudolph W. Giuliani; American
Value President and former presidential hopeful Gary Bauer endorsed Sen.
John McCain; and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins remained
neutral, even as Mr. Huckabee was wowing their supporters and winning
the values voter straw polls they organized. (No pagination)

Pat Robertson is a prominent Dominionist, as is evidenced by his
"explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles
in American society mirrors ... a dominionist impulse in contemporary
evangelicalism" (Barron 12). Gary Bauer has been a participant in the
CNP, a Dominionist organization ("Taking Over the Republican Party," no
pagination). The Family Research Council is yet another organization
that has been identified as Dominionist in character("The Rise of the
Religious Right in the Republican Party," no pagination). Evidently, the
"kingmakers" that Huckabee failed to impress were the neo-Gnostic
jihadists of Dominionism. The "king" they hope to enthrone is a false
messiah who promises to immanentize the Eschaton.

Worldly Kings for Worldly Kingdoms

Dominionism has managed to consolidate sizable quantities of political
capital in the emergent world order. The efforts of McCain and Huckabee
to woo Dominionist interests provide two cases in point. At the same
time, the Dominionists represent only one group of competitors in a much
larger deep political system. Their secular progressive counterparts
have also accumulated considerable amounts of political capital. The
jihad between these two camps of sociopolitical Utopianism is
facilitating a Hegelian synthesis, the outcome of which will synchronize
with the neo-Gnostic vision of an Eschaton within the ontological
confines of this world. In 1 John 2:17, the Apostle writes: "And the
world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of
God abideth for ever." Likewise, the worldly kingdom sought by these
sociopolitical Utopians will pass away. Given the sad fact that neither
side intends on doing the will of the Lord, neither the Dominionists nor
the secular progressives will abide forever. Instead, they share the
fate of the doomed kosmos that they have sought to instantiate.

Sources Cited

Aho, Barbara. "The Council for National Policy." Watch Unto Prayer

<http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html>

Baker, Jeffrey. Cheque Mate: The Game of Princes. Springdale, PA:
Whitaker House, 1995.

Bainbridge, William Sims. "Religions for a Galactic Civilization."
Excerpted from Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M.
Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, pages 187-201, 1982.

Balmer, Randall. "Jesus is Not a Republican." The Chronicle of Higher
Education 23 June 2006 <http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm>

Barron, Bruce. Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of
Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992.

Billington, James H. Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the
Revolutionary Faith. New York: Basic, 1980.

Campbell, George. A Dissertation on Miracles. 1762. Electronic Text
Collection. Google Books Search.
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=kiUPAAAAIAAJ&dq=a+dissertation+on+miracles&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=l9R3YeKT_a&sig=vD6_kUlkSV2bwjsWexSDArs5D0E#PPT1,M1>

"Cessationism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 18 February 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism>

Dager, Albert. Vengeance Is Ours: The Church In Dominion. Sword
Publishers, 1990.

"Christian Reconstructionism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 20
January 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism>

"Dominionism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 28 February 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#Anthropocentrism>

Fiegel, Eric. "Huckabee: Outsiders not welcome in Confederate flag
decisions." CNN 17 January 2008
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/17/huckabee-outsiders-not-welcome-in-confederate-flag-decisions/>

Fischer, Frank. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1990.

Goeringer, Conrad. "The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati."
American Atheists 2006
<http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/enlightenment/>

Haass, Richard. "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era."
Taipei Times 21 February 2006
<http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021>

Hallow, Ralph. "McCain courts top conservatives." Washington Times 8
March 2008
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NATION/486460353>

---. "Huckabee cites power of ‘kingmakers.’" Washington Times 25 March
2008
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/NATION/67454600/-1/RSS_NATION_POLITICS>

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Electronic Text Collection. Ed. Steve
Thomas. U of Adelaide Library. 12 March 2007
<http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/>

Howard, Michael. The Occult Conspiracy: Secret Societies-Their Influence
and Power in World History. Vermont: Destiny Books, 1989.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 1748. Electronic
Text Collection. Ed. Steve Thomas. U of Adelaide Library. 6 February
2006 <http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92e/>

Huxley, Aldous Brave New World Revisited. Bantam Books, New York 1958.

"Immanence." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 5 February 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence>

"Jesus did not come to be the Messiah?" YouTube
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0K1GEs2gAI>

Kaiser, Robert G. and Ira Chinoy. "Scaife: Funding Father of the Right."
Washington Post 2 May 1999
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm>

Kirkpatrick, David D. "The 2004 Campaign: The Conservatives; Club of the
Most Powerful Gathers in the Strictest Privacy." The New York Times 30
March 2008
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DA1E3EF93BA1575BC0A9629C8B63>

Kurth, James. "Western Civilization, Our Tradition." The Intercollegiate
Review Fall 2003/Spring 2004 <http://www.mmisi.org/ir/39_01_2/kurth.pdf>

Leslie, Sarah. "Dominionism and the Rise of Christian Imperialism."
Discernment Ministries
<http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm>

Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967.

"Lucifer." Answers.com <http://www.answers.com/Lucifer>

Mascolo, Georg. "A Leaderless, Directionless Superpower." Spiegel Online
International 6 December 2005
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,388857,00.html>

"Mike Huckabee's adviser is president of the CFR, Richard N Haass."
Pupaganda 4 January 2008
<http://pupaganda.com/2008/01/04/mike-huckabees-top-advisor-is-president-of-the-cfr.aspx>

Millegan, Kris. "God and Man and Magic at Yale." Fleshing Out Skull and
Bones, Kris Millegan, ed., Walterville, OR: Trine Day, 2003, 403-19.

Montanaro, Domenico. "Huck, the Constitution, and ‘God’s Standards’."
MSNBC 15 January 2008
<http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx>

Pansler, Karen. "Religious Rebels." Liberty Advocate
<http://www.libertyadvocate.com/message10.htm>

Pike, Albert. Morals and Dogma. 1871. Richmond, Virginia: L.H. Jenkins,
Inc., 1942.

Potok, Mark. "Taliban on the Palouse?" Southern Poverty Law Center
Intelligence Report Spring 2004
<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=376>

Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.
New York: MacMillan, 1966.

Raschke, Carl A. The Interruption of Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the
Origins of the New Religious Consciousness. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980.

Robison, John. Proofs of a Conspiracy 1797
<http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS_OF_A_CONSPIRACY_John_Robison.pdf>

"Rousas John Rushdoony." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 19 February
2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Rushdoony>

Schiffren, Lisa. "God’s Government." National Review Online 15 January
2008
<http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2ZkODI2NTFiYTQ5Njk5NDE4ZTA5MTg1NTJmZjViMTA>

"Scientific Socialism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 5 November 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism>

Smith, Wolfgang. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis
of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Illinois: TAN Books, 1988.

"Taking Over the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch February 2005
<http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm>

"The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party,"
TheocracyWatch November 2006
<http://www.theocracywatch.org/index_before_nov_06.htm>

Trento, Joseph. Prelude to Terror: Edwin Wilson and the Legacy of
America’s Private Intelligence Network. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2005.

Webb, James. The Occult Establishment. Open Court, 1976.

Webster, Nesta. Secret Societies and Subversive Movements. 1 January
1924 <http://ca.geocities.com/nt_351/webster/secret/secret_09.html>

Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1952.