Replies

Yet the sleight of hand here is that, as you have already pointed out, Roamer, “anointing” in a charismatic context is just a common way of speaking about God expressing His will concerning someone, and does not tell us at all what Ted believes about the specifics of hard core dominionism.

That is precisely right. A declared anointing has to be pretty specific to a person and a subject before it would be an 'anointing' in the sense that old school Protestant branches define (not that they'd know what to do with it). And in my experience among charismatics, that is seldom seen.

Another lump in the loaf, is how far does one have to go to be free of the accusation of Dominionism? As I showed upthread, the Christian Right as a whole is said to be practicing Dominionism. Once smeared with it in a derogatory fashion, how does one *not* be a dominionist without ceding all political ground entirely?

I don't know about you, but I kinda like having the Christian Right around.

And I don't know about anyone else, but my faith not only informs my vote at every level of government, but it also informs my associations, my business dealings, my children's education, Just about every faction of my life. If there's a dogcatcher who is a Christian vs. one that is not, who do you suppose would be likely to get my vote? So gee, I guess I am a dominionist too.

As for Ted being like his dad, I hope he is, in every way that is good.

Hear, Hear! And that is to be celebrated!

As I showed upthread, the Christian Right as a whole is said to be practicing Dominionism.

But consider the fallacy of this statement: That "The Christian Right as a whole is [falsely] accused of practicing Dominionism; thus, the issues raised by this thread are not valid."

Obviously, whether the whole is falsely accused or not makes no difference as to whether Dominionism exists, and it does, obviously, and is very influential and powerful in GOP circles.