(My comment, Part 2, continued):

4. Hardcore dominionism is hard to identify, even within NAR groups. I know many people in NAR circles, including some very influential leaders (famous names). One of these leaders (whom I've known well for 13 years) has a very benign concept of dominion. I've grilled him on it over the years and heard many of his teachings. To him it simply means that Christians should have a measure of influence in all aspects of society: government, media, arts, entertainment, etc. He does not believe the Church should dominate and monopolize all those spheres, only have some influence. (Like Wilbeforce did in the British Parliament, working to abolish the British slave trade). But there are other leaders under that same general NAR umbrella who are hardcore dominionists: reconstructionism, Rushdoony, the whole lot.
All the varied leaders are using the same word ("dominion"), but mean different things by it.

These and other issues serve to make hardcore dominionists harder to spot. As per my prior illustration, it's pretty easy to identify a Scientology church and know what the members believe. Same with an Independent-Fundamentalist-KJV-only-Baptist church. Coercive movements like that have form and substance; thus they're easy to spot. Scientology buzzwords mean the same thing to all Scientologists.

But today's dominionist movement is amorphous, and is almost literally omnipresent, through radio, TV, print-media, the Internet, etc. And the same buzzword (in this case "dominion") can have several different meanings, depending upon which church or leader you're hearing or reading at any given moment of the day.

And this is why I think the problem is actually much graver than it looks: much worse than the love-bombing and gradual manipulation of one single religious group. For this same reason, I didn't have to leave a particular church or denomination to exit the "movement." Instead, I chose to become extremely selective about who I allow to influence me. Sort of like a crowd of people in a big supermarket. We're all in the same store, but some people are buying poisonous, trans-fat and sugar laden foods; and others are avoiding all that, trying to maintain or regain their health.

Again, I think this odorless, tasteless gas methodology is much worse than traditional steeple-jacking, or traditional abusive churches. How does one stop such an onslaught? Personally, I have no answer to that question.

(My comment, Part One)

To Alex Bird,

I'm the Jonathan Rice who wrote the article you extensively quoted. I've been so busy that this is my first chance to reply. For the most part, I really enjoyed your article. You and I share many of the same insights. But there's one thing that I disagree with in your reading of my piece; and this point of disagreement, in my view, makes the entire scene all the more dangerous. I disagree that I was pulled into a coercive religious group. Here's why:

1. There was no one monolithic "group" that I was part of. Had I joined the Moonies, Scientology, etc., I would have been in one; in a specific group. Such groups are easy to identify, and all the members are in lock-step together. For example: I don't know of any liberal or progressive Scientology churches or teachers. One is either following THE official teachings of Hubbard (through the directives of the new leader), or one is out. And, Scientology has been so thoroughly exposed over the past decade, that any new convert at least has the opportunity to discover the snares before joining up. Scientology (a very coercive group in my opinion) is easy to spot, easy to identify. And this makes it less dangerous. But because the religious scene you and I are discussing is amorphous, it's much harder to spot, pin down and identify. And thus, all the more dangerous (I'll develop this thought in the next few points).

2. I didn't get love-bombed when I converted. I knew well about love-bombing then--the Moonies were famous for it back in the day. Instead, I was one of about 30 kids in a youth group, who were only there because our parents dragged us along to church. We wanted nothing to do with God; we only wanted to party. We all held out several years, until, in one fell swoop, we all became Christians at a summer camp. None of us had been trained to love-bomb the others. Rather, we spontaneously formed a new clique, based upon our shared conversion. We formed genuine friendships, and are still friends to this day, thanks to Facebook. When I entered a Bible College a year later, all us freshmen were suddenly thrown into a new environment, as in the case of any college. Then began the normal sociological pattern of making new friends and forming new cliques. Most of those old friends are also my F.B. friends now.
So really, there was no love-bombing at all; just naturally-formed friendships. Had I been an atheist I probably would have formed my friendships in a similar manner.

3. Steeple-jacking was/is a problem, for sure. Last month, while visiting Colorado, I found that a local Evangelical Free Church had recently been steeple-jacked by--guess who—Quiverfull devotees.

But much worse than the steeple-jacking of local churches and/or denominations, is the ubiquitous influence of Christian media. Take for example, Don Wildmon's call to boycott Speed Stick deodorant, which I mentioned and you then quoted. I lived in Las Vegas then, and almost everyone in my church was talking about the boycott. Everyone, that is, except for the pastor and the elders. The pastor thought the boycott was absurd. But the pastor/elders couldn't compete with the media. Our local church influenced us two or three hours a week. But think of how many hours of Christian radio and TV the average church member was/is exposed to: for many, 40 hours a week is no exaggeration. They listen to it at home, in the car, at work; and they are on multiple religious right mailing lists. This is what made Don Wildmon's petty Mennon boycott a hot topic at our church. The pastor could not compete.

This is much more insidious than a group of QF elders steeple-jacking a local church; or even a group of bigwigs steeple-jacking a denomination. This is the odorless, tasteless gas that seeps through the doors and windows of every church; via the airwaves and print media. Every Sunday the pastor faces a crowd, 90% or more of which are being thoroughly and systematically indoctrinated by the media over which the pastor has no control. In one sense, Alex, perhaps you and I are on the same page but are just defining the term "steeple-jacking" differently. The combined effect of the US Christian media does in fact steeple-jack, but in a much more subtle and destructive manner than the term often connotes.