Christian reconstructionist warns of threat from New Apostolic Reformation dominionism

Note to dominionism deniers: Not only is dominionism real, there are at least two types alive and well within evangelical circles. In the category of it-takes-one-to-know-one, American Vision’s Joel McDurmon spells out the differences between the theonomy of Christian reconstructionism and the dominionism of the New Apostolic Reformation. In all seriousness, if you want to understand the two movements, this is an important article to read. I bring the highlights with some supporting information; you should read the whole thing.
Let me begin at the end of McDurmon’s post. He concludes that the Seven Mountain teaching of the New Apostolic Reformation is a dangerous top-down power grab.

Can you imagine John Hagee as Secretary of State?
This is exactly the threat—top-down threat, totalitarian threat, eschatological holocaust threat—that 7MD presents to us.
American Vision is not that; they are not us; we are not them.
Perhaps more should be written on these guys and the threats they pose to society. They may have a few better political ideas, but they are just as dangerous in degree as the most radical of the left.
Perhaps I am wrong about them. Perhaps I have misread them as national-power grabbers when they are not. If not, they should disavow everything I have quoted here clearly and unequivocally in print, and provide their viable limited-government, free-market alternative.

McDurmon, who openly believes that national civil law should be the same as Old Testament law, quotes several NAR writers, including the driving force behind the movement, C. Peter Wagner. He does not offer this quote but I want to point out what Wagner says about dominion from his book Dominion: How Kingdom Action Can Change the World. FIrst he says that “if a Christian majority wants to allow praying to God in the name of Jesus, the minority should follow the basic rules of democracy and attempt to prohibit such a practice. If a majority feels that heterosexual marriage is the best choice for a happy and prosperous society, those in the minority who disagree should conform — not because they live in a theocracy, but because they live in a democracy. The most basic principle of democracy is that the majority, not the minority, rules and sets the ultimate norms for society.” (p. 17)
If Wagner’s movement is ever successful with this view of democracy, the 14th Amendment will need to be repealed. Having defined away minority rights, Wagner then describes how dominion might work in a society:

In light of this, taking dominion or transforming society does not imply a theocracy. Taking dominion comes about by playing by the rules of the democratic game and, fairly and squarely, gaining the necessary influence in the seven molders of culture to ultimately benefit a nation and open society for the blessings, prosperity and happiness God desires for all people. God rules those who are faithful to HIm. Such people, filled with God, are the ones who I believe will govern the transformed societies of the future. This is not a plea for a theocracy. (p. 18)

Rick Perry’s The Response prayer meeting last month was full of New Apostolic Reformationists which is the kind of thing one would expect. Play the game, fair and square; get your people elected and then the majority will make rules to which the minority should conform. McDurmon calls this a threat.
McDurmon agrees with some tenets of NAR dominionism, saying:

Before my critical remarks, however, let me note a couple of great acknowledgements and key teachings associated with the 7MD movement. First, there is generally an emphasis on making disciples and not just converts. The church has too much focused only on “saving souls” and not enough on training those souls in obedience to all the teachings of Christ. This I affirm and applaud.
Second (and based on the first point), the leaders almost all make a point to acknowledge that the gospel and the Great Commission are so much greater than just the visible church itself. Rather, the gospel applies to every area of life, and the Great Commission is a renewal of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28. Thus, we should apply God’s Word to things like business, economics, government, family, media, art, etc., with the goal of dominion throughout the earth.
With these things—generally stated—I wholeheartedly agree.

However, he then notes that NAR dominionists propose getting control of the various segments of society “by any means necessary” which he asserts is at odds which reconstructionist thinking. In contrast, reconstructionists believe that government should be decentralized with local governments making rules for local entities. He favors implementation of Mosaic law but believes anyone who doesn’t like it could leave and go elsewhere. He adds that reconstructionists believe that such a reconstructionist society would come because a majority of people convert to Christianity without any top-down enforcement.
For anyone interested in what is shaping up to be a defining issue in the 2012 campaign, McDurmon has clarified some theological issues of importance.
Hat tip to Right Wing Watch for the McDurmon link.

8 thoughts on “Christian reconstructionist warns of threat from New Apostolic Reformation dominionism”

  1. The McDurmon/Wagner difference is basically the difference between a pluralist approach and a non-pluralist approach. You find the same kind of debate in secular or in Christian-leftist political circles. There’s nothing ridiculous in it.
    I suppose that settlements with a rigorous ethics wouldn’t have to do much stoning or strangling. If the settlement is voluntary, most pertpetrators would not come in or would leave before the perpetration. (Anabaptists and related groups with a rigorous ethics were rather effective without stoning or strangling only by the principle of “Meidung” (avoidance, non-connection).)
    I don’t share McDurmon’s preference for O.T. ethics and lack empathical understanding what attracts him, but I suppose it’ not just the stoning and strangling.

  2. Sadly, neither “Christian Reconstructionism” nor the New Apostolic Reformation constitute Christianity, nor represent the Great Commission. I say “sadly” because non-christians lump Christians together with these cults. Yes, I said “cults”. What you have here is a Mafia-style hijacking of the Christian faith by two cult movements vying for the political and financial support of Christians like myself. However, genuine Christians remember the words of Jesus Christ: John 18:33 through 38 (NLV). Both Reconstructionist and NAR cults despise this part of the Bible because Jesus Christ Himself makes it perfectly clear that 1 – He is a King, 2 – HE ALREADY HAS A KINGDOM, one that was not built by nor needs to be re-built by the Reconstructionist and NAR cults, 3 – His Kingdom is not and earthly kingdom and as such needs no act of intervention whatsoever from Christians in it’s defense, 4 – He came into the world NOT to build a Kingdom for Himself but to testify to the truth. What truth? The Gospel of Salvation: John 3:6 through 21 (NLV). Do you get it? Reconstructionists and the New Apostolic Reformation ARE NOT Christians because what they are really after is an earthly kingdom of their own making: a Christless kingdom! Both diabolical organizations are cults and should not be confused with Christians in any way. I lost my church of ten years to them but I willingly left because, as a Christian, I do not agree with their agenda nor do I want any part of it! If your church is associated with Reconstructionism, the Purpose Driven Church, or the New Apostolic Reformation – your church has become affiliated with a cult. Get out while you still can! – Sola Scriptura!

  3. Sadly, neither “Christian Reconstructionism” nor the New Apostolic Reformation constitute Christianity, nor represent the Great Commission. I say “sadly” because non-christians lump Christians together with these cults. Yes, I said “cults”. What you have here is a Mafia-style hijacking of the Christian faith by two cult movements vying for the political and financial support of Christians like myself. However, genuine Christians remember the words of Jesus Christ: John 18:33 through 38 (NLV). Both Reconstructionist and NAR cults despise this part of the Bible because Jesus Christ Himself makes it perfectly clear that 1 – He is a King, 2 – HE ALREADY HAS A KINGDOM, one that was not built by nor needs to be re-built by the Reconstructionist and NAR cults, 3 – His Kingdom is not and earthly kingdom and as such needs no act of intervention whatsoever from Christians in it’s defense, 4 – He came into the world NOT to build a Kingdom for Himself but to testify to the truth. What truth? The Gospel of Salvation: John 3:6 through 21 (NLV). Do you get it? Reconstructionists and the New Apostolic Reformation ARE NOT Christians because what they are really after is an earthly kingdom of their own making: a Christless kingdom! Both diabolical organizations are cults and should not be confused with Christians in any way. I lost my church of ten years to them but I willingly left because, as a Christian, I do not agree with their agenda nor do I want any part of it! If your church is associated with Reconstructionism, the Purpose Driven Church, or the New Apostolic Reformation – your church has become affiliated with a cult. Get out while you still can! – Sola Scriptura!

  4. The McDurmon/Wagner difference is basically the difference between a pluralist approach and a non-pluralist approach. You find the same kind of debate in secular or in Christian-leftist political circles. There’s nothing ridiculous in it.
    I suppose that settlements with a rigorous ethics wouldn’t have to do much stoning or strangling. If the settlement is voluntary, most pertpetrators would not come in or would leave before the perpetration. (Anabaptists and related groups with a rigorous ethics were rather effective without stoning or strangling only by the principle of “Meidung” (avoidance, non-connection).)
    I don’t share McDurmon’s preference for O.T. ethics and lack empathical understanding what attracts him, but I suppose it’ not just the stoning and strangling.

  5. One good thing about loopy-loo extremists: they usually end up arguing with each other! (I reckon that McDurmon’s ‘vision’ is for ‘local majoritarianism’ – presumably with some ‘local’ stonings and stranglings for good measure.)

  6. One good thing about loopy-loo extremists: they usually end up arguing with each other! (I reckon that McDurmon’s ‘vision’ is for ‘local majoritarianism’ – presumably with some ‘local’ stonings and stranglings for good measure.)

Comments are closed.