Jim Wallis's argument is strongest when addressing specific cases of injustice and violence. His critique of the war in Iraq is exemplary in this regard. As Wallis parses it, the Bush administration's framing of the necessity of the war embodied a "God is on our side" approach, one that is triumphalists and theocratic to its core. "To believe that your own nation is 'the greatest force for good in history' … and that those who oppose us are 'evil' is, indeed, a dangerous religion for the world.

Professor Bernard Lewis
Having set Christianity and Islam apart from the rest of world religions such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, professor Bernard Lewis classifies the latter as relativist religions, while the former two as triumphalist religions. "For some religions, just as 'civilization' means us, and the rest are barbarians, so 'religion' means ours, and the rest are infidels. Other religions, such as Judaism and most of the religions of Asia, concede that human beings may use different religions to speak to God, as they use different languages to speak to one another. God understands them all… The relativist view was condemned and rejected by both Christians and Muslims, who shared the conviction that there was only one true faith, theirs, which it was their duty to bring to all humankind. The triumphalist view is increasingly under attack in Christendom, and is disavowed by significant numbers of Christian clerics.."

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, a citizen approached Benjamin Franklin and asked what sort of government the assembled statesmen had given them. "A republic, if you can keep it," Franklin is reputed to have replied.

Can we keep it?

That is an urgent question that needs to be asked anew today, more than two centuries after the American Republic began. The Roman Republic lasted but two centuries, and then it was supplanted by the Roman Empire, first a pagan theocracy and then a Christian theocracy. Has the American democratic republic, too, become so fragile that its survival is in doubt?

Recent events have prompted me to consider seriously the possibility of this country becoming a Theocracy. In the past, this possibility seemed very remote indeed. The separation of church and state was well established and few Christians considered challenging it. Although politicians since George Washington have frequently referred to God, Jesus and the Bible, the actual involvement of the government in supporting religion has been minimal. The pledge of allegiance had "under God" added in the 1950s. Recently, Bush set up his "faith based" program. The main governmental support of religion is the tax exemption for churches.

The founding fathers were well aware of the miseries caused by states based on or heavily influenced by religious dogma. However, there was substantial effort on the part of some religious leaders to introduce religious principles into the Constitution, fortunately these efforts were resisted by the founding fathers.

Rev. Rich Lang, United Methodist church, Seattle, June 2004, had this to say.
"Part of the power and seduction of this Bush administration emerges from its diabolical manipulation of Christian rhetoric. I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Mr. Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied. It is, indeed, the materialization of the spirit of the antichrist: a perversion of Christian faith and practice. This country, like it or not, is overwhelmingly dominated by the ideology of the Christian story. It is not so much that our founders were all Christians. Rather, they lived in an atmosphere scented throughout by Christian thought and rhetoric. Just as most of us can't imagine how to keep things cold without refrigeration so too our founders couldn't help but think through the lens of the Christian story. And what they saw was that America had become the New Israel (the new Promised Land) of God. America has understood itself as a benevolent nation seeking only the good of all. We have understand our wealth as a blessing given to us as a sign that we are a "chosen, special people" whose larger meaning is to help the world into an era of peace, prosperity and justice. Every politician draws on this "civil religion story" which gives authority to the politicians ambition and agenda. Another way of saying this is: every nation needs sacred legitimation. It needs the authority of transcendence: of a story larger than itself. A story that connects past with present and future. An Empire needs an even broader story: one that connects with cosmic and/or historical redemption and new creation. Martin Luther King understood this sacred American civil religion and was able to wed it brilliantly with the prophetic religious teachings of the Bible. He drew upon Biblical narratives which limited the power and authority of the elite while calling for economic redistribution of wealth. He drew upon teachings rooted in the personal morality of nonviolence and compassion.

George Bush, on the other hand, also understands this sacred American 'civic gospel' and has brilliantly merged it with Biblical Holiness and Holy War traditions. These traditions call for the emergence of the Righteous Warrior who will cleanse the land of its impurity. These traditions are rooted in the personal morality of righteous zeal and obedience. Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems. In his September 20, 2001 speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's sense of vulnerability: 'Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. . I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight. Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.' (Subsequent terror alerts have maintained and expanded this fear of sinister enemies.)"

Political democracy is a precondition for a just democratic society. In a political democracy, the basic policies of a nation and the actions by key officials of its government to carry them out depend upon the freely given consent of a majority of the population of adult citizens voting in free elections. Representative democracy presupposes (a) The legal right of opposition; (b) Civil liberties; (c) The right to petition the government for redress of grievances; (d) Widespread participation of citizens at all levels of decision making; (e) The rule of law (a just legal system with open trials); and (f) A strong civil society.

So what are some of the aspects of a Theocracy? In a Theocracy, the governmental rulers are identical with the leaders of the dominant religion. Governmental policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the principles of the majority religion, and typically, the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion. However, unlike other forms of government, a theocracy is unique in that the administrative hierarchy of government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of a religion. This distinguishes a theocracy from forms of governments which have a state religion or from traditional monarchies in which the head of state claims that his or her authority comes from God.

Perhaps at this point it would be a good to review some religious terminology and definitions.

Religion, sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.

Today religious myths seem like irrelevant fantasies but the ancients regarded them as profound allegories encoding mystical teachings. They were an archetypical vocabulary with which to think about life. Creating new myths was a way of exploring new ideas. The name Jesus apparently derived from Joshua Myths and the title Christ is closely linked to the Exodus myth. Today the name Jesus Christ is inextricably linked to the literalist figure of the supposed founder of Christianity, the messiah. In the early days, there were two major forms of Christianity, Literalist and Gnostic. The Gnostics interpret the biblical stories and teachings as valuable myths providing guidance toward experiencing the mystery of life. In this sense they are very similar to Eastern mystics. The mystical Gnostics were severely suppressed by the developing Catholic church and all but disappeared during the middle ages.

The literalists, on the other hand, believe in the literal meaning of Biblical stories and create dogmas to distinguish their beliefs from others. The literalists are triumphalists, intolerant of dissent, claiming they are fulfilling God's will. It is Literalists who fight wars of religion and oppress the Gnostics and anyone else who disagrees with them.

The rest of my discussion will concern the Literalists, since essentially all of the Religious right sects are Literalists.

I will be briefly discussing five literalist Christian groupings starting with the least conservative.

Evangelism A subset of Christianity Evangelism is a conservative aspect of Christianity and has several distinct meanings: In its original sense, it means belonging or related to the Gospel of the New Testament. In the United States, it usually refers to adherents of Evangelicalism who preach the New Testament gospel and promote the worship of Jesus.

Fundamentalism A subset of Evangelism Fundamentalism is a Literalist Christian movement which maintains strict adherence to founding principles in the Bible. Fundamentalism can refer to anti-modernist movements in various religions. Fundamentalism is a relatively new brand of Protestantism, started in America that has attracted a tremendous following, including many fallen away Catholics. How did this popular movement originate? The history of Fundamentalism may be viewed as having three main phases. The first lasted a generation, from the 1890s to the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. In this period, Fundamentalism emerged as a reaction to liberalizing trends in American Protestantism; it broke off, but never completely, from Evangelicalism, of which it may be considered one wing. In its second phase, it passed from public view, but never actually disappeared or even lost ground. Finally, Fundamentalism came to the nation's attention again around 1970, and it has enjoyed considerable growth.

The basic elements of Fundamentalism were formulated almost exactly a century ago at the Presbyterian theological seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, by B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, among others. What they produced became known as Princeton theology, and it appealed to conservative Protestants who were concerned with the liberalizing trends of the Social Gospel movement, which was gaining steam at about the same time.

The fundamental doctrines identified in the series can be reduced to five: (I) the inspiration and what the writers call infallibility of Biblical Scripture, (2) the deity of Christ (including his virgin birth), (3) the substitutionary atonement of his death, (4) his literal resurrection from the dead, and (5) his literal return at the Second Coming.

In many ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of a rapidly changing culture, even in the United States where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that Biblical texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

"Jesus and the Lost Goddess" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is an excellent reference.

The belief that is first and foremost the defining characteristic of Fundamentalists is their reliance on the Bible to the complete exclusion of any authority exercised by the Church. The second is their insistence on a faith in Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior.

"Do you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" they ask. "Have you been saved?" This is unmodified Christian individualism, which holds that the individual is saved, without ever considering his relationship to a church, a congregation, or anyone else. It is a one-to-one relationship, with no community, no sacraments, just the individual Christian and his Lord. And the Christian knows when he has been saved, down to the hour and minute of his salvation, because his salvation came when he "accepted" Christ. It came like a flash.
In that instant, many Fundamentalists believe, their salvation is assured. There is now nothing that can undo it. Without that instant, that moment of acceptance, a person would be doomed to eternal hell. And that is why the third most visible characteristic of Fundamentalism is the emphasis on evangelism. If sinners do not undergo the same kind of salvation experience Fundamentalists have undergone, they will go to hell. Fundamentalists perceive a duty to spread their faith-what can be more charitable than to give others a chance for escaping hell?-and they often have been successful.

Their success is partly due to their discipline. For all their talk about the Catholic Church being "rule-laden," there are perhaps no Christians who operate in a more regimented manner. Their rules-non-biblical rules, one might add-extend not just to religion and religious practices proper, but to facets of everyday life. Most people are familiar with their strictures on drinking, gambling, dancing, and smoking.

From fundamentalism we go to Reconstructionism

A more conservative form of Fundamentalism According to the Bible, God, in creating man, ordered him to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28). Man, in attempting to establish separate dominion and autonomous jurisdiction over the earth (Gen. 3:5), fell into sin and death. God, in order to re-establish the Kingdom of God, called Abraham, and then Israel, to be His people, to subdue the earth, and to exercise dominion under God. The law, as given through Moses, established the laws of godly society, of true development for man under God, and the prophets repeatedly called Israel to this purpose.
The purpose of Christ's coming was in terms of this same creation mandate. Christ as the new Adam (I Cor. 15:45) kept the law perfectly. As the sin-bearer of the elect, Christ died to make atonement for their sins, to restore them to their position of righteousness under God. The redeemed are recalled to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfill "the righteousness of the law" (Rom 8:4). The law remains central to God's purpose. Man has been re-established into God's original purpose and calling. Man's justification is by the grace of God in Jesus Christ; man's sanctification is by means of the law of God.
As the new chosen people of God, the Christians are commanded to do that which Adam in Eden, and Israel in Canaan, failed to do. One and the same covenant, under differing administrations, still prevails. Man is summoned to create the society God requires. From Reconstructionism we go to Dominionism A radical form of Reconstructionism Dominionism is essentially the same as Reconstructionism with a focus on changing the US government. The Dominionist political movement in the United States arose in the 1970s as a movement that seeks to establish a theocratic government in the United States, replacing the governance and constitution of the United States with a political and judicial system based on the Old Testament, or Mosaic Law. Dominionism is rooted in Dominion Theology.

Dominionism is closely related to Christian Reconstructionism. Many investigative accounts, demonstrate that the Dominionist movement is currently very politically active in the United States. The Dominionist movement has been clandestine; As Theocracy Watch (http://www.theocracywatch.org) points out, the Dominionist movement has been building for more than 30 years, and it has only begun to emerge into American politics.

Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of the United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them. All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay (skeptics annotated bible) was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans.

Back to Reconstructionism Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society."

Current Reconstructionist Beliefs:
According to Gary DeMar, a popular Reconstructionist author, the foundation of Reconstructionism is a unique combination of three Biblical doctrines:
1. Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship with Christ 2. Individuals guiding their lives closely by following a specified subset of Biblical laws 3. Promoting of the world-wide Kingdom of God.
If they gained control of the US or Canadian federal government, there would be many changes: Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely "social" or "moral" issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionist have formulated a "Biblical world view" and "Biblical principles" by which to examine contemporary matters.
Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law." Militant atheists who are concerned with the proliferation of RMDs (Religions of Mass Destruction) may be missing an important point here. After all, it is not gods who inflict so much ignorance, hate, and violence upon the world. (Gods do not exist, right?) The source of trouble, indeed, may be belief itself, but the direct cause of the many problems we are all burdened with is that so many people try to please gods by following their orders and their example. Consider the fact that millions of people believe in ghosts, but no one worships them in tax-free buildings under the guidance of trained professionals. Ghosts are just not respected in the way gods are.
Therefore, the concept of ghosts is not pushing evolution out of classrooms or motivating people to strap bombs around their torsos. With ghosts, it's mostly just a case of gullible people wasting a bit of space in their skulls with nonsense and causing relatively little harm to the world.

Jesus Plus Nothing By Jeffery Sharlet, Harpers Magazine March 2003
The Family-Ivanwold an example of Reconstructionism with a twist
The Family was founded in April 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant who made his living as a traveling preacher. One night, while lying in bed fretting about socialists, Wobblies, and a Swedish Communist who, he was sure, planned to bring Seattle under the control of Moscow, Vereide received a visitation: a voice, and a light in the dark, bright and blinding. The next day he met a friend, a wealthy businessman and former major, and the two men agreed upon a spiritual plan. They enlisted nineteen business executives in a weekly breakfast meeting and together they prayed, convinced that Jesus alone could redeem Seattle and crush the radical unions. They wanted to give Jesus a vessel, and so they asked God to raise up a leader. One of their number, a city councilman named Arthur Langlie, stood and said, "I am ready to let God use me." Langlie was made first mayor and later governor, backed in both campaigns by money and muscle from his prayer-breakfast friends, whose number had rapidly multiplied.[5] Vereide and his new brothers spread out across the Northwest in chauffeured vehicles (a $20,000 Dusenburg carried brothers on one mission, he boasted). "Men," wrote Vereide, "thus quickened." Prayer breakfast groups were formed in dozens of cities, from San Francisco to Philadelphia. There were already enough men ministering to the down-and-out, Vereide had decided; his mission field would be men with the means to seize the world for God. Vereide called his potential flock of the rich and powerful, those in need only of the "real" Jesus, the "up-and-out."

Jeffery Sharlet's visit to Ivanwold
Two weeks into my stay, David Coe, Doug's son and the presumptive heir to leadership of the Family, dropped by the house. My brothers and I assembled in the living room, where David had draped his tall frame over a burgundy leather recliner like a frat boy, one leg hanging over a padded arm.
"You guys," David Coe said, "are here to learn how to rule the world." He was in his late forties, with dark, gray-flecked hair, an olive complexion, and teeth like a slab of white marble. We sat around him in a rough circle, on couches and chairs, as the afternoon light slanted through the wooden blinds onto walls adorned with foxhunting lithographs and a giant tapestry of the Last Supper. Rafael, a wealthy Ecuadoran who'd been a college soccer star before coming to Ivanwald, had a hard time with English, and he didn't understand what David had said. So he stared, lips parted in puzzlement. David seemed to like that. He stared back, holding Raf's gaze like it was a pretty thing he'd found on the ground. "You have very intense eyes," David said.
"Thank you," Raf mumbled.
"Hey," David said, "let's talk about the Old Testament. Who would you say are its good guys?"
"David," Beau volunteered.
"King David," David Coe said. "That's a good one. David. Hey. What would you say made King David a good guy?" He was giggling, not from nervousness but from barely containable delight.
"Faith?" Beau said. "His faith was so strong?"
"Yeah." David nodded as if he hadn't heard that before. "Hey, you know what's interesting about King David?" From the blank stares of the others I could see that they did not. Many didn't even carry a Hebrew Bible, preferring a slim volume of just the New Testament Gospels and Epistles and, from the Old, Psalms. Others had the whole book, but the gold gilt on the pages of the first two thirds remained undisturbed. "King David," David Coe went on, "liked to do really, really bad things." He chuckled. "Here's this guy who slept with another man's wife-Bathsheba, right?-and then basically murders her husband. And this guy is one of our heroes." David shook his head. "I mean, Jiminy Christmas, God likes this guy! What," he said, "is that all about?"
The answer, we discovered, was that King David had been "chosen." To illustrate this point David Coe turned to Beau. "Beau, let's say I hear you raped three little girls. And now here you are at Ivanwald. What would I think of you, Beau?"
Beau shrank into the cushions. "Probably that I'm pretty bad?"
"No, Beau. I wouldn't. Because I'm not here to judge you. That's not my job. I'm here for only one thing."
"Jesus?" Beau said. David smiled and winked.
He walked to the National Geographic map of the world mounted on the wall. "You guys know about Genghis Khan?" he asked. "Genghis was a man with a vision. He conquered"-David stood on the couch under the map, tracing, with his hand, half the northern hemisphere-"nearly everything. He devastated nearly everything. His enemies? He beheaded them." David swiped a finger across his throat. "Dop, dop, dop, dop."
David explained that when Genghis entered a defeated city he would call in the local headman and have him stuffed into a crate. Over the crate would be spread a tablecloth, and on the tablecloth would be spread a wonderful meal. "And then, while the man suffocated, Genghis ate, and he didn't even hear the man's screams." David still stood on the couch, a finger in the air. "Do you know what that means?" He was thinking of Christ's parable of the wineskins. "You can't pour new into old," David said, returning to his chair. "We elect our leaders. Jesus elects his."
He reached over and squeezed the arm of a brother. "Isn't that great?" David said. "That's the way everything in life happens. If you're a person known to be around Jesus, you can go and do anything. And that's who you guys are. When you leave here, you're not only going to know the value of Jesus, you're going to know the people who rule the world. It's about vision. 'Get your vision straight, then relate.' Talk to the people who rule the world, and help them obey. Obey Him. If I obey Him myself, I help others do the same. You know why? Because I become a warning. We become a warning. We warn everybody that the future king is coming. Not just of this country or that, but of the world." Then he pointed at the map, toward the Khan's vast, reclaimable empire.
One night I asked Josh, a brother from Atlanta who was hoping to do mission work overseas, if I could look at some materials the Family had given him. "Man, I'd love to share them with you," he said, and retrieved from his bureau drawer two folders full of documents. While my brothers slept, I sat at the end of our long, oak dining table and copied them into my notebook.
In a document entitled "Our Common Agreement as a Core Group," members of the Family are instructed to form a "core group," or a "cell," which is defined as "a publicly invisible but privately identifiable group of companions." A document called "Thoughts on a Core Group" explains that "Communists use cells as their basic structure. The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four man squad. Hitler, Lenin, and many others understood the power of a small core of people."
Another document, "Thoughts and Principles of the Family," sets forth political guidelines, such as
21. We recognize the place and responsibility of national secular leaders in the work of advancing His kingdom.
23. To the world in general we will say that we are "in Christ" rather than "Christian"-"Christian" having become a political term in most of the world and in the United States a meaningless term. 24. We desire to see a leadership led by God-leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit. and self-examination questions:
4. Do I give only verbal assent to the policies of the family or am I a partner in seeking the mind of the Lord?
7. Do I agree with and practice the financial precepts of the family?[4]
13. Am I willing to work without human recognition?
When the group is ready, "Thoughts on a Core Group" explains, it can set to work:
After being together for a while, in this closer relationship, God will give you more insight into your own geographical area and your sphere of influence-make your opportunities a matter of prayer. . . . The primary purpose of a core group is not to become an "action group," but an invisible "believing group." However, activity normally grows out of agreements reached in faith and in prayer around the person of Jesus Christ.
Long-term goals were best summarized in a document called "Youth Corps Vision." Another Family project, Youth Corps distributes pleasant brochures featuring endorsements from political leaders-among them Tsutomu Hata, a former prime minister of Japan, former secretary of state James Baker, and Yoweri Museveni, president of Uganda-and full of enthusiastic rhetoric about helping young people to learn the principles of leadership. The word "Jesus" is unmentioned in the brochure.
But "Youth Corps Vision," which is intended only for members of the Family ("it's kinda secret," Josh cautioned me), is more direct.
The Vision is to mobilize thousands of young people world wide-committed to principle precepts, and person of Jesus Christ. . . . A group of highly dedicated individuals who are united together having a total commitment to use their lives to daily seek to mature into people who talk like Jesus, act like Jesus, think like Jesus. This group will have the responsibility to: -see that the commitment and action is maintained to the overall vision; -see that the finest and best invisible organization is developed and maintained at all levels of the work; -even though the structure is hidden, see that the family atmosphere is maintained, so that all people can feel a part of the family.
Another document-"Regional Reports, January 3, 2002"-lists some of the nations where Youth Corps programs are already in operation: Russia, Ukraine, Romania, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Nepal, Bhutan, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru. Youth Corps is, in many respects, a more aggressive version of Young Life, a better-known network of Christian youth groups that entice teenagers with parties and sports, and only later work Jesus into the equation. Most of my American brothers at Ivanwald had been among Young Life's elite, and many had returned to Young Life during their college summers to work as counselors. Youth Corps, whose programs are often centered around Ivanwald-style houses, prepares the best of its recruits for positions of power in business and government abroad. The goal: "Two hundred national and international world leaders bound together relationally by a mutual love for God and the family."
"Yes," Doug said, "it's good to have friends. Do you know what a difference a friend can make? A friend you can agree with?" He smiled. "Two or three agree, and they pray? They can do anything. Agree. Agreement. What's that mean?" Doug looked at me. "You're a writer. What does that mean?" I remembered Paul's letter to the Philippians, which we had begun to memorize. Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded. "Unity," I said. "Agreement means unity." Doug didn't smile. "Yes," he said. "Total unity. Two, or three, become one. Do you know," he asked, "that there's another word for that?" No one spoke.
"It's called a covenant. Two, or three, agree? They can do anything. A covenant is . . . powerful. Can you think of anyone who made a covenant with his friends?" We all knew the answer to this, having heard his name invoked numerous times in this context. Andrew from Australia, sitting beside Doug, cleared his throat: "Hitler." "Yes," Doug said. "Yes, Hitler made a covenant. The Mafia makes a covenant. It is such a very powerful thing. Two, or three, agree." He took another bite from his plate, planted his fork on its tines. "Well, guys," he said, "I gotta go." As Doug Coe left, my brothers' hearts were beating hard: for the poor, for a covenant. "Awesome," Bengt said. We stood to clear our dishes.

So to recap, we can follow religion beliefs in the US down into increasingly conservative literalist views ending with the Fundamentalist cults, the Dominionists and Doug Coe's, The Family, at Ivanwold. They each have some differences in how they would like to take over the world.
Members of the Dominionists cults are willing to impose the most extreme form theological rule on society by any means. Murder and slavery are acceptable. Their rule would ultimately produce a fascist style Theocracy similar to the Islamic Taliban.
The Reconstructionists and the Ivanwald cult, in particular, want to convert the world to their Jesus based theological government by infiltration and persuasion, ultimately producing a fascist style Theocracy similar to the Islamic Taliban.

Take your pick.

Again Rev. Lang:
"The point I'm trying to make is that we are not dealing simply with politics when it comes to the Bush administration. The progressive left, which often pays little attention to Christianity, will be making a huge mistake if they overlook the religious ideology at the core of Mr. Bush personally and the movement he represents. We are talking about a "movement" (a movement of 'the people' not just the elites). We are seeing today the emergence of a "fascist style" Theocratic movement". It is bankrolled and organized by Corporations, articulated through the ideology of neoconservativism and is fueled by the right-wing church drawing upon the image of Jesus and the old testament holy war Biblical narratives."

A careful reading of Bush's inaugural address reveals his emphasis on Biblical concepts of how the world should be and how he is going to change it.