Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the article is that it relies entirely on guilt by association. Peruse the entire article and ask yourself, where does Ted Cruz endorse the idea that Christians must conquer the seven domains of society or else Jesus won’t come back?
Not. One. Place.
The “hit” in this hit piece is what propagandists and advertisers call “transfer.” Take something you know people hate at a gut level, and associate it with the subject for which you wish to generate hatred. After a certain quantity of this associative technique is used, eventually folks become programmed to automatically transfer their hatred for the one thing to the subject of interest. It is an ugly tactic that relies on human emotional behavior rather than appealing to our better, rational selves.
As for Ted Cruz, he is a Southern Baptist, and so his eschatology is much more likely to be standard premillenarian belief, not “kingdom now” theocracy. His dad, even if he were a classic dominionist, falls well short of the dominionism I have right next door to me. Having spent many years as a Southern Baptist, I can tell you these folks next door are really not compatible with Southern Baptist theology or practice, and would never make it past the membership class if they were open in what they believed. Are there infiltrators? Sure. I would expect that. But the two cannot openly coexist. Eschatologically, they are opposites. Dominionism, had it reared it’s head in my old SBC church in Indiana, would be tarred and feathered by the elders as an evil variation on some liberal version of postmillennialism (which may be a fair analysis).
So trying to push the idea that dominionisn is not a denomination, while technically true, is misleading, as those denominations that have traditional premillenarian eschatology will not provide a welcome environment for dominionism.
As for Beth Moore, she has moved on and is no longer at First Baptist of Houston. I have attempted to contact the church there and discover the whys and wherefores of that departure. I suspect it is because she was indeed becoming too controversial in some of her views, and was no longer welcome there. Yet, having read some of her posts on the matter, she has clearly attempted to show she hold the Scriptures in higher regard than her own “revelations.” My own pastor believes God speaks to him, and needs to have such conversation with God to be an effective leader of the flock. So some of this is murky.
For example, she has been accused of promoting “new age” practices. One can make an argument that is the case, IF she in fact promotes something like “contemplative prayer,” which is all the rage right now, and it does indeed turn prayer into a self-hypnosis, mantra-repetitive experience designed to alter consciousness. I know something of this from personal experience, as it was something I was into before I was converted. It is a gross error getting too great a foothold in the church.
However, if one wants to be fair, “contemplative prayer” is showing up all over the place, not excluding once-austere organizations such as Donald Trump’s wildly liberal Presbyterian denomination, the PCUSA.
Now, please don’t misunderstand. Just because The Donald goes to that church, I do not assume he is OK with “new age” contemplative prayer, or that he share’s his denominations’ willingness to endorse gay marriage, or their efforts to boycott Israel into economic submission to their enemies. No, I would never use a propaganda technique like Tranfer to try and take The Donald down. I prefer taking him down for the things that have actually come out of his own mouth and are a matter if the public record. Because I’m rather hesitant to violate the ninth commandment and bear false witness against my neighbor. But if they give their own testimony, like saying Kelo is good, or we just gotta live with gay marriage because its the law of the land now, or that hate crime legislation to protect gays is a good thing (even though it’s basically adding punishment for thought crimes), then that open testimony is fair game.
Just sayin ...
Peace,
SR
Thank you for your post (#229). I appreciate your insightful analysis of the self-written article posted by GPH.
I have seen the Southern Baptist Convention inundated by the “hearing Jesus’s voice” and “contemplative prayer” movement, which troubles me greatly. The Blackaby family, Phyllis Shirer, Beth Moore, etc. have moved many in our denomination into this non-Biblical view of discipleship and prayer, and it is very troubling to me. I usually get “deer in the headlight” looks from some of my fellow Southern Baptists when I attempt to point out the problem with such views.
Getting back to your post - as I said, I appreciate you pointing out the guilt by association toward Ted Cruz. I really have like his focus on following the Constitution and that he can present conservatism clearly, even while “under the gun” of the media. I have been seriously considering him as the one I want to support for president.
I had heard of the dominion movement, but really didn’t know much about it. I agree with you that most Southern Baptists would vehemently disagree with the establishment of a literal kingdom on earth idea. It does seem that Rafael Cruz has some ties to all of that, and I fear he could be a liability for Ted later on.
Anyway, thank you for your sane reply as opposed to the virulent attacks thrown back and forth by some freepers.
This seems like another significant post. SR adds some personal testimony that colors the report about this Beth Moore mentioned in GPH’s original post. Not to mention SR also makes the point I made later which was/is: the main “damage” the OP inflicts on Cruz is via “guilt by association”.
I wouldn’t mind if you, GPH, addresses this point (that your OP relies on guilt via association to impugn Cruz) and/or the post SR made, to which this post is in reply.
I’m still reading the thread but have yet to see you address this criticism.
Back to reading.