Just to let you know Springfield Reformer, Winston Churchill ran as both a Labor candidate and a Conservative Candidate. He switched parties as to the opportunity to win a seat. If a seat looked good, he would stroll over to the town and put down his name as running under whatever party he thought would give him a seat. Not knocking Winston here. I just thought it was a fascinating insight I read in his eight volume biography.
Interesting factoid. I wonder if it suggests something about a shift in the meaning of parties. Dunno. Just an interesting curiosity. But he was a brilliant writer and thinker. I have found him profitable.
BTW, I know this dominionist stuff sounds scary, but ...
1) a lot of what passes for dominionism is just old fashioned amillennialism with a dash of charismatic flavoring,
2) I live next to some true blue wacko dominionists that go much further, and it is nothing that would fit into Ted Cruz’s Southern Baptist beliefs or church life at all, so there’s a real disconnect there for me, and
3) my sense of the article referenced is that the author finds all politically active Christians threatening, especially their opposition to the gay agenda, etc. I’d be careful with this, because there is a strain of liberalism that loves to paint all Christians as closet theocrats, and they will do what I call “selective amplification” to make their point. It’s easy to get co-opted by such as these. Just sayin ...
Peace,
SR