The New Christian Right

My last three blogs have all focused on a form of Christian radicalism. I specifically went over the top in preparation for the final blog in this series about fundamentalism. Part of the reason for doing so was to draw on certain types of responses, comments and to prepare the marketplace of ideas for this final piece.

Religious philosophy and theology has always been one of my passions and for a little more than four decades, I have been studying and analyzing the phenomena of a unified radical Christian right, which have become so politicized and polarized. It wasn’t until the early 1970s that I began seeing the reemergence of theological arguments and actions that I had only read about in history books. Three years ago, while doing research for a novel I was writing. I started to stumble onto information that I hadn’t seen before, concerning some pretty obscure theological concepts connected to the new Christian Right. These theological constructs involve Christian eschatology and Dominionism or the Dominion Mandate, Christian Reconstructionalism, Christian Zionism, and Theonomy, just to name a few.  

I hate conspiracies and conspiracy theorists and I don’t think that the New Christian Right (NCR) is an out and out conspiracy, but it is a powerful force that must be watched. I feel the same about any organization or organizations that attempt to exercise power, whether left or right. However, ideologies that are supposedly given and sustained by a higher power are particularly dangerous, since there is no higher power to appeal to. Those that claim to speak for that higher power have the potential of a tyrant and to do much evil.

Eschatology is the study of ‘end times’ and Christian eschatology is the study of the end times from a Christian perspective. The major issues and events are death and the afterlife, the second advent of the Christ, heaven and hell, the resurrection of the dead, the tribulation, the rapture, the millennium, and the last judgment. These issues and concepts have been part of the Christian dialogue since the 1st century C.E. and interpretation and understanding has shifted, adapted and evolved over the course of nearly two millennia. Old discarded interpretations seem to apparently die only to be resurrected later by new groups of theologians. Some of the critical underpinnings of the New Christian Right are based on the notion of Millennialism, more precisely when the 1000 years of G-d’s Kingdom on Earth, ruled by the Christ, will occur.

The major trains of Millennialism thought are separated into their positions of; premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. However, these philosophical ideologies have become muddled and resist any kind of clear differentiation within the NCR (New Christian Right). It is an evolved form of Millennialism, with elements from all three positions. But it plays a key factor in determining the NRC’s goals, policy positions and basic unifying principles. For example; the NCR has adopted a premillennial position on climate change; that all will be put right upon Christ’s return and doesn’t require any human intervention. On the other hand, only Christians holding the right beliefs and in a state of continuing grace should hold leadership positions and public office; a very postmillennial position.

Probably the most problematic position comes out of the field of Dominionism, which holds from Genesis 1:26, that man shall hold dominion over the earth (paraphrased). However, according to some religious ideology, man lost his right of dominion after the original sin, but was reinstated by the blood sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, the privilege of dominion has been bestowed on Christ’s followers who are in a state of perpetual grace. In short, they are the ones to rule over the earth and other humans until the advent of Christ’s return. This is something that is not openly talked about or acknowledged by its adherents, but it is in play. One only has to look at the current situation of the NCR’s support of political candidates. They must meet the 'litmus test' of proper beliefs and positions.

Also on the agenda of the NRC is an extreme position of Theonomy or the rule of G-d’s law. This is something that is generally rejected, but has strong support for passing statutes that support biblical law. This is precisely why many of the controversial social issues currently allowed by law is targeted to either be eliminated, overturned or modified to be consistent with their perception of biblical law. The most extreme of the NRC would favor a theocracy, under their leadership, ushering in G-d’s Kingdom on Earth. There’s only one problem; it has been tried before and failed miserably. Christians are no different when given absolute power; since absolute power corrupts absolutely. Then one will find they are living in a Taliban type society.

The extreme views held by the few cannot and should not be assigned to the majority of Christians or even the fundamentalist/evangelical movements; but the risk is there to destroy the very meaning of democracy and living within an adaptable society. It is the portion of the NRC that is politically engaged in the struggle over power who is pushing us toward the cliff of American Talibanism. Under those conditions, what happens to freedom of speech, freedom if action, and the exercise of personal responsibility? My own ethnic group knows all too well what happens when you hold contrary views to the majority and refuse to adopt the majority beliefs and views. It’s not been that many years ago that six million of my extended family died in Nazi concentration camps and before the firing squads

I think, that anyone who is literate and concerned about liberty and freedom should research the NCR and the motivation and ideology that propels them. I find that it’s not a coincidence that mainstream Christianity has not embraced this form of radicalized Christianity.

We are concerned with the external and internal threats that we’ve identified from radicalized Islam. Should we not also be concerned about a radicalized NCR?

I want to extend my most sincere apologies to those that I have offended in the last three posts and my comments. I know that you don’t need a canon to kill a fly, but sometimes using a canon gets the attention of all the other flys.

I have included a list of important organizations of NRC:

Douglas and Maria DeVos Foundation

Daniel and Pamela DeVos Foundation

Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation

The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation

The Elsa and Edgar Prince Foundation

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Focus on the Family

Family Research Council

The Haggai Foundation

American Family Association

Alliance Defense Fund