Ruchdooney’s misuse of the “dominion mandate” should disqualify him from being taken seriously by any Christian. My mind is always blown by the logical contortions he needs to place upon the verse to try and make it comport with his pet theories. The mandate was intended to explain a very simple idea, that man has dominion over the natural world - a fact of life so obvious I think it would hardly need exposition. It wasn’t written to a Christian vs. an unbeliever, it doesn’t say anything about politics, or society, or the arts, humanities, or any other human endeavor. Yet it seems that Rushdoony has created a whole philosophy of life surrounding his fictitious interpretation.
At least, Rushdoony made it plain that God’s Word applies to such things as “politics, or society, or the arts, humanities, or any other human endeavor.” Those who assert that God is indifferent to all of these aspects of the created order have nothing profitable to contribute to the conversation. Such folks are, as the enemies of God and man would prefer, neutered. Harmless. Sterile.
You can’t fight something with nothing. A navel view will never suffice when confronting a world view, no matter how hysterically you amp up, and goose, your navel view. Real life is not impressed by the intensity of our pious feelings.
“The mandate was intended to explain a very simple idea, that man has dominion over the natural world -”
History shows us that this is indeed true. Men do have dominion.
The question before us is: which men?
Who would we have rule?
Muslims? Amish? Atheists? Evangelicals? Agnostics?
Personally I think SINCERELY Christian men are well proven to be the best leaders. That’s why I vote for them.
(must I state that SINCERELY is important. I can’t read a man’s heart, but I can judge by his fruits. I look beyond someone saying they are Christians - I look at their actions and VOTES.)
They won’t save me, and they won’t be perfect. But I do believe they are the best bet.