Introduction
Should Christians “take dominion” in the world before Christ returns? Two movements within the
American Christian Church say yes. Both of these movements fall under the classification of “Dominion Theology,” which states a Biblical mandate to occupy or control all secular institutions until Christ returns.
Christian Reconstructionism
First is the Christian Reconstruction movement, led by such men as Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony. Almost unknown 30 years ago, Reconstructionsim is now influencing the evangelical Church. Its leadership is aggressive, with a Postmillennialist call for Christians to take over the world before Christ can return. Postmillennialism teaches the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world by preaching the Gospel, so that the world will be Christianized during this nonliteral Millennium. Its goal is for a worldwide conquest by Christianity to take over the world for Christ. In their view, this is to be done by the Church, while Christ the King is absent from the earth, something which the Bible simply does not teach. Associated with a small number of think tanks and book publishers, Reconstructionists advocates call for the imposition of an Old Testament style theocracy, complete with capital punishment for serious offenses like adultery, homosexuality, and blasphemy.
Reconstructionism is the most intellectually grounded brand of Dominion Theology. Its leading proponent has been Rousas John Rushdoony, an obscure figure within the Christian Right. Rushdoony founded the Chalcedon Foundation in California in the mid-1960s. One of the Foundation’s early associates was Gary North who eventually married his daughter. Rushdoony and North had a falling out and ceased collaboration many years ago. North started his own think tank, the Institute for Christian Economics in Tyler, Texas. Rushdoony, North, and about a half dozen other Reconstructionist writers have published numerous books and advocating Postmillennialism and “Theonomy” or the application of God’s law to all spheres of everyday life.
North has geared his writing for popular audiences, while Rushdoony’s writing is more exhaustive and also more controversial. North has also published a series of attacks on believers in Premillennialism. It was Rushdoony’s 1973 book The Institutes of Biblical Law that articulated Reconstructionists’ vision of a theocracy in which Old Testament law would be reinstated in modern society. Old Testament law classified a wide range of sins as punishable by death; these included not only murder and rape but also adultery, incest, homosexuality, witchcraft, incorrigible delinquency by youth, and even blasphemy. In the Reconstructionists’ vision of a millennial or “kingdom” society, there would be only local governments; there would be no central administrative state to collect property taxes, nor to provide education or other welfare services. Reconstructionism boasts a few other prolific writers. These include Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Rev. Joseph Morecraft, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry.
Kingdom Now
The second group of Dominionists is known as Kingdom Now, led by men such as Earl Paulk and Thomas Reid. “Kingdom Now theology” urges the Church to become united and mature under the rule of charismatic apostles and prophets (such as Paulk), and take control of secular institutions enough to establish that the Church represents the authority of Christ.
The emphasis on the Church’s taking “dominion” in both of these movements has led to their being associated together under the label “Dominion Theology.” There are significant points of common notions held by the two groups. But there are also more important differences. The Reconstructionists are orthodox Calvinists and are thus solidly evangelical, even if many evangelicals will strongly disagree with Postmillennialism and other distinctive Reconstructionist doctrines. On the other hand, Kingdom Now brings together in one package most of the unbiblical elements of the earlier heretical perversions of Pentecostalism issuing from the “Latter Rain” movement of the late 1940s.
So, these two movements understand “taking dominion” rather differently. The Reconstructionists envision a gradual, pervasive transformation of human institutions in the wake of worldwide conversion to orthodox Christianity, while the Kingdom Now teachers look for a brief display of the Church’s power as the basis for Christ condemning the unbelieving world for not listening to the gospel. Both groups are convinced that “taking dominion” means taking control of our government away from the godless is in fact Christ’s mandate to the Church. They hope that Christians can take sufficient control of things to set the agenda and course for America into the next century.
Today in the Church there is a changing attitude toward Israel, which is attributed to to the teachings of Dominionists. One of the key doctrines of this movement is the claim that the Church is now Israel, heir to all of her promises, and that national Israel has been cut off from God, and has further no place in the prophetic scheme. The Bible, however, teaches just the opposite. God will never cast off Israel as the Prophet Jeremiah states: If the heavens can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below then I will also cast off all the offspring for Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord (Jeremiah 31:37).
Speaking at Edmond near Oklahoma City on April 11, 1988, Rick Godwin, a popular Christian media speaker delivered the type of anti-Israel rhetoric that is becoming so typical today: They [national Israel] are not chosen, they are cursed!…Yes, and you hear Jerry Falwell and everybody else say the reason America’s great is because America’s blessed Israel. They sure have. Which Israel? “The” Israel — the Church…That’s the Israel of God, not that garlic one over on the Mediterranean Sea! (Thy Kingdom Come, Nov 87, pg3).
Earl Paulk states: “The hour has come for us to know…that the spirit of the antichrist is now at work in the world… through so-called Holy Spirit- filled teachers who say, ‘If you bless national Israel, God will bless you.’ Not only is this blatantly deceptive, it is not part of the new covenant at all!” (Earl Paulk, The Handwriting is on the Wall). Paulk obviously cares nothing about the words of Jeremiah with regard to the New Covenant for Israel, nor the Abrahamic Covenant which clearly states that God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel (Genesis 12:3).
The idea of taking dominion over secular society gained widespread acceptance with the 1981 publication of evangelical philosopher Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” Schaeffer, who died in 1984, ran a Christian retreat/training center in Switzerland during the 1960’s and 1970’s. He and his wife worked with young people who were searching for spiritual answers to life, faith and God . They came from all over to study the Bible and learn how to apply Schaeffer’s evangelical methodology, which included his version of Dominion Theology, to their cultures back home.
In “A Christian Manifesto,” Schaeffer’s argument is that the United States began as a nation rooted in Biblical principles. Then as society became more pluralistic, advocates of a new philosophy of secular humanism gradually came to dominate our society. Since humanists place human achievement, not God, at the center of their concerns, they pushed American culture in an ungodly directions, the most visible results of which included legalized abortion and the secularization of the public schools. Schaeffer concludes “A Christian Manifesto” with a call for Christians to use civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality.
Since Dominionists teach that the mission of the church goes beyond the spiritual transformation of individuals to a mandate to change society, they must change the laws of the land, elect Christians to office, and seek to take dominion over our world and bring it under the Mosaic Law. We see the influence of this thinking even in those who may know little about it: James Dobson, The Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Promise Keepers, Charles Colson, Operation Rescue, are but a few of the evidences that Dominionist thinking is beginning to dominate the evangelical world.
During the first three centuries of the apostolic Church, which was clearly Premillennial not Postmillennial, “reconstructing society” was never entertained. Christ clearly taught “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The Bible teaches us that the world will become more corrupt in the last days, then after the Tribulation period Christ will return and establish His millennial kingdom. Reigning over the whole earth from Jerusalem, His Capital, Israel will be made the leader of the nations, and the Church will reign with Him for a “literal” thousand years. The Church is never commanded to subdue the earth on its own, this simply will not happen until Christ returns. The Church’s main responsibility is evangelism and discipleship, not political activism. Our call as believers is to change people through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not to change society through social reformation.
Written by Alan Torres
You have misused and not understood what Christ said about His Kingdom being not of this word (your piece on “Dominionism.)
Okay, so what did our Lord mean when He said His kingdom “is not of this world?” Well, as the Amplified Bible explains it, what this means is that Christ’s Kingship, His royal power, is not from this world. It has no worldly origin or source. And I have run across no other commentary which indicates otherwise.
In the first volume of his “Institutes of Biblical Law,” Dr. R.J. Rushdoony quotes B.F. Westcott as observing that what Christ means in John 18:36 is that His kingdom “does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.” In other words, says Rushdoony, “Christ’s kingdom is not derived from this world, because it is of God and is over this world.” In volume two of the “Institutes,” quoting from the Berkeley Version which says “But really the source of My kingdom is not here,” Rushdoony says: “To deny that Christ’s kingdom is in this world is to alter the faith to either a neo-Platonic idealism or a Manichean dualism. In either case, the world and history are rejected and are handed over to the devil.
“Not surprisingly, such people who hold this view are insistent on seeing Satan as the prince of the physical universe and become implicit Satanists in the powers they ascribe to Satan. From such a perspective, the Church has little to do with history other than to rescue lost souls and then wait for the end (amillennialism and post-tribulation pre-millennialism).” And not just so-called Christian Reconstructionists share this view of Scripture. In a footnote to John18:36 in his “Study Bible” (New American Standard Version], Charles Caldwell Ryrie says that our Lord said what he said to Pilate to indicate that His kingdom was not “a rival political kingdom to Rome,” that Jesus’ authority is “not of human origin.”
In his commentary, Matthew Henry says of John 18:36: that it means that Christ’s kingdom “is not from this world.” Commentators Robert Jamieson, Andrew Fausset and David Brown point out: “He does not say ‘not over,’ but ‘not of this world’ – i.e., in its origin and nature.” And in his excellent book “Toward A Biblical View Of Civil Government” (Moody Press, 1974), Robert D. Culver writes, concerning John 18:36:
“The words ‘of this world’ translate ek tou kosmou toutou, that is, out of this world. Source rather than realm is the sense. . . . The future consummation of the kingdom of Christ cannot rightly be said to be beyond history. No indeed! It will occur in history and is history’s goal….So Jesus very clearly is making no comment on either the nature of his kingdom or His realm, rather on the power source of its establishment. This agrees with the very highest expressions of Old Testament Messianic prophecy, for it is there written of Him that: ‘The government shall be upon His shoulder… of the increase of His government… there shall be no end, upon the throne of David… The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this’ ” (Isaiah 9: 6 to 7).
In his “Systematic Theology,” Charles Hodge says: “The kingdom of God, therefore, as consisting of those who acknowledge, worship, love, and obey Jehovah as the only living and true God, has existed in our world ever since the fall of Adam. It has ever been the light and life of the world. It is the salt by which it is preserved. It is the leaven by which it is ultimately to be pervaded. . . . ‘And of His kingdom there shall be no end’ ” (Luke 1:31 to 33).
Noting that “it is the kingdom which God was to establish on earth in distinction from the kingdoms of men,” Hodge emphasizes that all power in heaven and earth has been committed to Christ’s hands (Matthew 28:18); God hath put all things under His feet (Ephesians 1:20 to 22); in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him (Hebrews 2:8); and “God hath highly exalted, and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth” (Phil. 2:9 and 10).
Hodge says: “This is a perfectly exhaustive statement. All in heaven, all in earth, and all under the earth, include all rational creatures. The person to whom they are to bow the knee is Jesus, not the Logos, but the God-man. And the acknowledgment which they are to make is [His sovereignty.] It is in this sense also that the Apostle says (Heb. 1:2), that God hath appointed the Son heir of all things. It is in virtue of this dominion over the universe that Christ is called Lord of lords and King of kings, i.e., the Sovereign over all other sovereigns in heaven and earth.” And he adds, quoting First Corinthians 16:22, that “if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha.”
In his “Word Studies In The New Testament,” commenting on Revelation 1:9, the reference to Christ’s kingdom, Marvin Vincent says this refers to “the present kingdom.” He says: “It is the assurance of being now within the kingdom of Christ – under Christ’s sovereignty, fighting the good fight under His leadership – which gives hope and courage and patience. The kingdom of God is a present energy, and it is a peculiarity of John to treat the eternal life as already present.”
Quoting Romans 8:37 which says that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us,” Vincent says: “This may go to explain the peculiar order of the three words; ‘tribulation’ and ‘kingdom,’ two apparently antithetic ideas, being joined, with a true insight into their relation, and ‘patience’ being added as the element through which the tribulation is translated into sovereignty. The reference to the future glorious kingdom need not be rejected. It is rather involved in the present kingdom.
“Patience, which links the life of tribulation with the sovereignty of Christ here upon earth, likewise links it with the consummation of Christ’s kingdom in heaven. Through faith and patience the subjects of that kingdom inherit the promises.” And Vincent quotes another commentator, Richard of St. Victor, who says: “Rightly he (John) says first ‘in the tribulation’ and adds afterwards ‘in the kingdom,’ because if we suffer together we shall also reign together.”
A final observation. The often heard assertion that Christ’s ministry was devoted only to “meeting spiritual needs” and He “never tried to reform worldly institutions” is a truly astounding statement that ignores the fact that, among other things, God’s becoming flesh in the person of Christ was the most powerful, reforming political event in the history of the world! Christ and Christians not only completely transformed the ancient world but also founded the greatest and freest country in world history, the United States of America.
As Fustel De Coulanges describes it in his classic “The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions Of Greece And Rome (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1889), the Greek and Roman states acted as if they were God. He writes: “The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The religion (pagan) which produced the state, and the state which supported the religion, sustained each other; these two powers formed a power almost super-human, to which the body and soul were equally enslaved. There was nothing independent in man; his body belonged to the state and devoted to its defense.” De Coulanges says:
“The ancients, therefore, knew neither liberty in private life, liberty in education, nor religious liberty. The human person counted for very little against that holy and almost divine authority called the country or the state. . . . It is a singular error, among all human errors, to believe that in the ancient cities men enjoyed liberty. They had not even the idea of it…The government was called by turns monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, but none of these revolutions gave men true liberty, individual liberty.”
But Jesus Christ and Biblical Christianity introduced new ideas, to put it mildly: “The fears of the gods was replaced by the love of God. Christianity, which Christ said was to be preached to ‘every creature’ in the world was not the domestic religion of any family, or the national religion of any city or race. The stranger no longer profaned the temple because the temple was open to all who believed in God. The priesthood was no longer hereditary because Christianity was not a patrimony. ..
“In addition, the Christian faith was not secret. It was open to all. And as a result, religion no longer commanded hatred between nations; it was no longer a citizen’s duty to detest foreigners. On the contrary, Christianity taught that justice and benevolence were to be accorded strangers. And the true faith taught that all are descended from a common father, with the result being that with this unity in God, it was thenceforth a religious necessity to forbid men to hate each other.
“When our Lord declared that there were things that were Caesar’s and things that were God’s, this was the first time that God and the state were so distinguished” (emphasis mine). Talk about a reform of worldly institutions! And from this new way, according to De Coulanges, true individual liberty flowed. He writes:
“Sentiments and manners, as well as politics, were changed. The ideas men had of the duties of citizens were modified. The first duty no longer consisted in giving one’s strength, one’s life to the state…By giving less honor to the city, Christianity placed God, the family, the human individual, above country, the neighbor above the city.”
And in a little-noticed passage in his “Democracy In America,” Alexis de Tocqueville notes: “The most profound and capacious minds of Rome and Greece… tried to prove that slavery was in the order of nature and that it would always exist. Nay, more, everything shows that those of the ancients who had been slaves before they became free, many of whom have left us excellent writings, themselves regarded servitude in no other light. All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and expanded before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all members of the human race are by nature equal and alike” (emphasis mine).
It was Godly men and women, acting on their Christian faith, that founded America. Historian Arnold Toynbee says the American revolution was made possible by Protestantism. And historian Page Smith says: “The American revolution might thus be said to have started, in a sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. It received a substantial part of its theological and philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” and much of its social theory from the Puritan
Revolution of 1640, 1660, and, perhaps less obviously, from the Glorious Revolution of 1689.”
Smith, who says the American revolution would have been “inconceivable” in the absence of Christian ideas, writes that “the leaders of the revolution in every colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith.” He says that Luther and Calvin “invented the individual” in America. And the Reformers were not simply men and women who subscribed to a set of theological propositions, but rather they were “individuals in a quite new sense, with a transcendant vision and the passionate determination to transform the world in accordance with that vision.”
Amen! And Amen! And I pray to God that He will restore that vision so that, once again, in the words of Daniel 11:32, we will, as a people, know Him so that we shall be strong and do great exploits. — JL
John Lofton, Editor
Recovering Republican
TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com