Discussion about this post

User's avatar
VICTOR ALEXANDER's avatar

The Rigor of this piece is very refreshing and the ranging references are thrilling! Bravo- a justice done to the thrusting quality of both Rand & Nietzche.

I find beautiful your correlation between Israel, Nietzsche and Rand- I also concur that the divinity of man is the central perspective that unites them and I totally agree in your theological point; Lewis’s Law of Nature is not based on this and to his discredit. And I properly agree with your conclusion regarding the centrality of man in his quintessent nature and that his eternal destiny to bring forth sacred order and redeem what is fallen in himself , and nature.

I found the Thiel references slightly unclear.

A few disagreements, if you will…


I think the argument would be improved in precision and accuracy if idolatry was the point made regarding paganism and modernity rather than set it all under paganism generally. In regards to Christianity, Paganism has much of coherence- one of them which is in fact, the purifying ritual of sacrifice and the sacredness of nature. The question is one of distinction, ordering, priority rather than domination. If as in your beautiful reference to St. Athanasius “the renewal of creation is wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning” , wouldn’t every element of nature (which is symbolic of transcendental realities), point to Christ as Logos? Wouldn’t all stories, even those that seemingly deviate from this unitary truth, remain still part of an elongated return to that same truth? I’d suggest here is where we find the notion of sin as that which is apart from truth, but even remains part of that “self-same word”, as Paul says -“ For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Romans 11:32). Thus, even in rebellion to truth and idolatry we declare truth in the same way that Pilate called Christ “King” and the solders nailed “King of the Jews” to this cross. It is the same with the idolatry of nature by the pagans, that idolatry worshipped the natural symbol rather than the originating (and invisible) LOGOS of God, the issue is they worship the symbol which points to the unitary truth. Does the tree seek to be worshipped? Christ himself pointed to the lillies of the fields as a sacred symbol of divine providence, then said to “seek first” the kingdom of God. I would suggest that paganism and judaism tell the same story of Christ himself, it is our depravity that falls to an idolatry of the story itself rather than the reality.

I agree in the singularity of the Judaic project, and that salvation of course is from the Jews. However I would suggest there are more consistencies between Old Testament Judaism and the pagans than your argument lets on (besides idolatry). and among them, sacrifice (including human) is the most glaringly omitted in your argument.


“22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” -Hebrews 9:22

The Jewish tradition is clear in it’s ritualistic sacrifice, Ceremonial Sacrifice as purification is at the heart of the Old Testament Law. It was Abraham who was in the act of killing his Son that foreshadowed the fulfillment of the old covenant with the new. Moses lifted the snake in the desert, The Levites annually shed blood for purification, etc. 

Also, regarding your point of the Judaic project being a sort of redemptive humanistic tradition in contrast to this “threat” of paganism- I concede that the monotheistic element is key, but what of their idolatry? What sacred perspective of humanity was espoused by “an eye for an eye” , what about the the insolent history of escaped slaves who insisted on idolatry arguably more severe than the pagans? What’s the difference between pagan idolatry of a tree, a capitalistic idolatry of money and a Jewish idolatry of a golden calf?. While righteousness was present, the majority of the Old Testament is not “a mutual self giving relationship with one God” , this framing is slightly romantic. Sacrifice and “self-righteousness” was central to the old covenant by a law based on works , which inevitably erected religious supremacy that was “enforceable” (The Passion), punishment, slavery, and brutality was just as prevalent, it was Christ who brought the covenant of Grace. 



While the Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel and not the other way around, The symbolical truth of Christ is just as present in hermetic texts, or the hanged man tarot card, or the inert nature of the world’s silent submission and obedience to Divine Providence as it is revealed in the Old Testament. I think using Paganism too broadly here risks a further aggravation of the modern desecration of nature in favor of some power worshipping ideal, which is more severely contrary with Christ.


I agree with the consummative metaphor in your postulation of “dominion” in the quotation of Genesis, but I think to postulate based on this term is coarse and ill-defined. I agree in the Nietzche /Rand term of the rational centrality of the thrust of the individual, this is essentially Christian- But in making this point, let’s not make it too coarsely and forget that Christ himself came as a sacrifice- a fulfillment of the sovereignty of Truth over the earthly kingdom of Force and Domination - which Pagans, Romans and Jews worshipped.

“The reason my father loves me, is I lay down my life”

So, while agreeing with your conclusion about the centrality of man as divine vessel ordained to set the world into divine order, I think using “Dominionism” without making the distinction between the kingdoms of men (man) and the kingdoms of God (love) severely risks losing the point. *By who’s power* are we to have dominion? Do we reign over nature through Randian fantasies of tall nyc skyscrapers? Christ is above all a testament to the truth that love itself is sovereign over force and [domin]ation, which is dangerously close to Dominion. 

I would suggest man was made to set things in order by God as co-heirs with Christ. To have “dominion” as Adam named the animals. But dominion by a Thiel/Rand/Pharisaical force over them is not that order- it was to set them in order by himself adopting the sacred order of divine providence, belonging in membership to the perfect obedience to this order that nature embodies. We preside , but do not dominate.

To me, the Nietzschean tone to this word dominionism (without further clarification) creates a linguistic space closer to the conquistadores than it is to Christ, its closer to crusader language of force, domination, and slavery which has yeasted our scientific cosmologies much more than CS Lewis ever did. Dominionism too easily falls into the linguistics of a Roman Emperor who worshipped Jupiter one day and Christ the next, according to the calendars of his enslaved subjects. Dominionism has more directly led to the Western desecration of nature (via nihilism + ego) than medieval paganism ever did. This interpretation has some tones of the worship of power without acknowledging that the whole point of Christ’s passion was a Kingdom that yields power unto the Father’s will and sacred order. One could argue this deification of power is what emptied christianity of it’s mystic essence (including stoic & agrarian elements) by the great beasts of materialism- The Romans.

I also disagree that the fulfillment of the universe is to first bring it into mans order; then somehow integrating it into the spiritual ascension of man. I do believe that the revelation of us as children of God liberates nature (Paul ref), but I believe that Nature is a state of perfect obedience to an impartial order of divine providence that we have departed from, not it- it remains obedient, it obeys by virtue the order of divine providence. I reject the dismissal of nature as less than , or under man, it is our home and our instruction. Nature is the estate, God is the master, we are the masters children. The more accurate point to make is against the idolatry of the symbolic quality of nature just as the idolatry of the “image” of progress the Randians have worshipped for decades. (giving us an era of autistic industrialism). 



Overall, I really enjoyed your argument and your work!

Expand full comment
Devaaya's avatar

One wonders if the translation merely glossed the original to add "dominion-ship and stewardship" instead of just "dominion-ship" if our world would be more verdant today. One is clearly impossible without the other.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts