The “Dominion Mandate” of the Genesis Creation story gets a bad rap in some quarters. Critics call some Christians “Dominionists,” making it into a bad label. As we begin a 52-week series of Sunday reflections on cross-cultural missions in the Bible, we’ll engage the Dominion Mandate first. But before we do that, we’ll look at Creation.
Part of the reason the Dominion Mandate gets a bad rap is that it is set in the midst of the Creation story, which likewise is the subject of controversy. I will not address the more controversial issues swirling around evolutionist and creationist thinking. To reflect on the story of Genesis 1-3, one does not actually need to accept a literal creationist view; plenty of people do not and still consider themselves followers of Christ. However, one does have to accept the existence of God and His purpose for mankind. And there is the rub for many. It requires us to clearly think about what or who we think God is.
When you consider God, you can really only take one of three responses.
The first is to disbelieve he exists (the atheistic position). The second is to believe he does exist (the theistic position—or perhaps what we could call the religious position). The third is to be uncertain; however, if you take the third position, you must by default take one of the other two positions as well. You must either say “I can’t really know one way or the other, but I really don’t think there is a God” or “I can’t really know one way or the other, but I would guess there probably is one.”
The reasons why we choose one of these three responses are varied: how we were raised, the life experiences we have had, the moments of faith. Regardless, everyone has to have one of these three positions. They are, logically, the only positions possible.
If you don’t believe God exists, then you might as well live your life getting whatever society will allow you to have, because when you die it’s all over anyway. If you do believe God exists, however, you are left with a more complex situation; because then you have to ask, “What kind of God is God?”
(can you think of another response? leave it in the comments below!)
What kind of God is God?
Once again, three possibilities logically cover any response: you must decide that the divine being is either (1) an impersonal force, (2) one among many divine beings each having a limited amount of power (e.g. a polytheistic position) or (3) a single, personal, probably all-powerful and all-knowing being.
If you choose to believe in God as an impersonal force, then you are in what I would call the “magical” world: the question is, how do you tap this “force” to achieve your own ends, and to what extent does this magical force require you to act in certain ways (moral? ethical? ritualistic?) to gain power.
If you choose to believe in multiple gods, then you are in what I call the “polytheistic” world. From my Western perspective, this seems to result either in fear or cynicism. Multiple gods must typically be placated, sometimes fight with each other, and are often difficult to fully understand or comprehend. Religious rituals develop to deal with this circumstance.
(The “we are god” theology basically falls either into a pantheistic force or a polytheistic world; it does not not necessarily acknowledge a single superior personal yet sovereign divine being.)
(Again, if you can think of another response, I’d be interested in seeing your comment.)
If, on the other hand, you choose to believe in a single personal being, then you are left with a God who has an incredible amount of knowledge and power and is sovereign over the universe. And this, again, leads us to questions.
What unique characteristics does a personal God have?
A force must be tapped in specific ways, just as you might interact with a machine. A system of polytheistic gods might have some personal characteristics, but nearly always these religious systems deal with placating or enduring their intricacies. A personal God might or might not have characteristics you can relate to.
Can you understand this God? Can you respond to him? Without getting deep into theology I have encountered four basic scenarios which seem to me to cover it. First is the Watchmaker: the God who “wound up” the universe and set it in motion, but no longer has any involvement in it; this could really be called theistic atheism. Second is the Unknowable God: He is there, but you cannot know him or understand him, he does what he wishes with no predictability; this is the position of Islam and some ethnic religions. Third is the Judge or Rulemaker: He is there, and you can understand and know him, and as long as you obey the rules you are okay. You can see this basic idea in both Judaism, Christianity and to a certain extent Islam. Finally there is the Grace-giving God who has rules but also has grace under certain conditions. This is the Christian position (as well I am sure of other religions).
Cross-cultural missions presumes mostly the fourth category: a God who is full of Grace and Truth. This God is personally involved in our world and wants His people to be likewise fully engaged. Yet it is amazing to me how much we ignore the world-engaging ideas in the Bible. We often act as if we believe in a Watchmaker, or an Unknowable, or a Judge rather than a Grace-giving Father. We pull back from the world. But if we explore the Scriptures we will discover a different idea from that we commonly associate with our Christianity.
Over the next year, each Sunday I’ll explore Biblical stories and characters and how they relate to cross-cultural engagement. I look forward to your responses!
