What Would Dominionists Do With Gays?

Recently, C. Peter Wagner, the Presiding Apostle for the International Council of Apostles, a subsidiary of Global Harvest Ministries, described dominionism as follows:

When Jesus came, he brought the kingdom of God and He expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth. This is what we mean by dominionism.

But what if you live in a country that protects the rights of those who you think are in the kingdom of Satan? What actions should you take? What laws should you support?
The answer seems to differ based on the kind of dominionist you are. For this post, I note two approaches – not always friendly to each other – those who follow the Seven Mountains teaching (New Apostolic Reformation) and those who call themselves theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists.
What these groups have in common in their belief that civil government should reflect Christian moral teachings. Those who deviate from Christian moral teaching should be subject to the laws of the land in addition to laws of the church. While this post is not exhaustive, there seems to be a difference between those in the New Apostolic Reformation and the Christian Reconstructionist movements when it comes to what kind of civil punishments should be delivered to those who violate Christian teachings regarding sexuality.
First, the New Apostolic Reformation.
In late 2009, I noted that the Seven Mountains teachings had adherents among those in Uganda who were strongly pushing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill there. If passed as is, the AHB will make homosexuality a capital offense.  Because of his association with AHB promoter in Uganda, Apostle Julius Oyet, and his teaching on reclaiming the Seven Mountains of culture, I asked Atlanta pastor, Johnny Enlow, what he thought about laws criminalizing homosexuality.  Enlow’s reply leaves room for criminalization but stops short of calling for the death penalty:

As to the question of whether governments should criminalize homosexuality as part of taking the mountain of government- this would only be a second best method of bringing awareness that the behavior of homosexuality is wrong. This becomes a necessity only when the moral fiber of society has become so degraded that society itself is in need of knowing right and wrong. For me, the point of criminalizing homosexuality is not to bring punishment to homosexuals but rather to inform society of right and wrong. I would be against harsh punishments against homosexual activity between consenting adults and would not endorse capital punishment for this scenario. Society does need to know that homosexual behavior is wrong but it would not be defensible to execute homosexuals anymore than it would be to execute rebellious children- which is espoused to some measure in Leviticus. There is a greater grace assigned to the new covenant understanding of the New Testament. Rebellious children are still wrong in their rebellion and homosexuals are still wrong in their behavior but we do not need the extreme punishments of the Old Testament. I personally believe that most who suffer from homosexual feelings are worthy of great compassion because as a rule it tells us they have suffered some significant traumas in their lives. It would not express the heart of God towards them for there to be government-sponsored “witch hunts” against them. Our fractured homes and fractured society greatly contribute to the presence of homosexual realities and individuals who manifest the marks of societal decay cannot be made to pay the full price for a greater societal ill. They are responsible for personal choices but there must be margin for compassion when fully understanding the causal effects. The in-your-face activist homosexual agenda is of course generating it’s own strong repercussions and backlashes and to the degree that they insist on forcing upon society their aberrations to that degree they will see increasing measures to limit their activism of a sin behavior.

As a reaction to my articles on Uganda’s anti-gay bill and the Seven Mountains teaching, Charisma magazine asked C. Peter Wagner and Lance Walnau whether or not the dominionism of the New Apostolic Reformation required death for gays. First Wallnau:

In a statement to Charisma, Wallnau, author of The 7 Mountain Mandate: Impacting Culture, Discipling Nations, said the seven mountains message is not about imposing laws but liberating spheres of influence. Although “the government in its sphere must enforce sanctions,” he said the proposed anti-homosexuality bill “seems like a severe sanction.”
He said Christians who crusade for social reform should consider the outcome of the Prohibition Act, which outlawed alcohol but also fueled organized crime.
“Christians had made a massive impact in the ‘temperance movement’ to stop drunkenness. Then they overreached with draconian legislation called the Volstead Act, and the backlash legalized alcohol,” Wallnau said. “To my brothers in Uganda I would say, ‘Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.’”

And then Wagner:

Although he commended Ugandan lawmakers for attempting to stand for biblical principles, he said legislating morality is not feasible. If Uganda wanted to legislate biblical principles, it would have to criminalize adultery and premarital sex and not single out homosexuality, he said.
“My position is that this is not a good way to do it,” Wagner said. “To legislate against sexual orientation is probably crossing the line. It’s like making a law whether parents can spank their children or not. It’s much too much of a personal ethical issue. … I would support raising up a national conscience against homosexuality and allowing the Holy Spirit to work that way.”

Based on these statements, dominionists in the NAR tradition want to discourage homosexuality from a national platform but are squeamish about “severe sanctions” like death.
Moving to the theonomic Christian Reconstructionists, squeamishness goes right out the window.
American Vision is a Christian Reconstructionist group who has partnered with Liberty University’s Law School among other mainstream social conservative organizations.
Two American Vision writers Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon both advocate the death penalty for gays. In his book Ruler of Nations, DeMar says about laws regarding gays:

Obviously, certain sins often may escape detection. Homosexuals who practice behind closed doors are out-of-bounds for the courts, of course, unless others witness their criminal behavior. Such behavior may not be dealt with by courts in history, but will be dealt with by God, either in history (e.g., AIDS) or eternity. The law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectually drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back to the closet, to the dark realm of shameful activity. (p. 212).

DeMar has some thoughts about others who are outside the evangelical rule:

Fourth, we must elect public officials who say they will vote for Biblical laws. First and foremost, this means voting to prohibit abortion. While few Christians are willing to go this far, the longterm goal should be the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them. If we argue that abortion is murder, then we must call for the death penalty. If abortionists are not supposed to be executed, then they are not murderers, and if they are not murderers, why do we want to abolish abortion? In short, Christians must learn to think consistently. (p.218)

I imagine I have just scratched the surface of Mr. DeMar’s work.
Back to Uganda’s anti-gay bill, American Vision’s Joel McDurmon commended Uganda politicians in 2009 and had this to say about civil penalties for gays.

Now, it just so happens that God revealed that the homosexual act is a civil crime, and it just so happens that He revealed that the homosexual act as a civil crime deserves the death penalty. [Rick] Warren disagrees. He argues, “Since God created all, and Jesus suffered and died for all, then we are to treat all with respect.” Of course, Jesus never claimed to suffer and die for all; He claimed to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28; 26:28; Heb. 2:10; 9:28). Likewise, God did not create all for unqualified “respect,” but some to be vessels of dishonor and destruction (Rom. 9:21–23).

For Christian Reconstructionists, civil penalties must follow what the Old Testament prescribes. In this way, the reconstructionists outdo the NAR dominionists.
One of the first tier reconstructionists is Gary North. North delivered a scathing attack on friend and GCC colleague T. David Gordon (no friend to the reconstructionists) in an 2003 email. North says he has the solution to the problem of divorce:

OK, let’s get down to specifics. Let’s go to the Bible. Here are my two verses. Dr. Gordon can call me in the morning.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev. 20:10).
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matt. 5:32).
A theonomist says, “Let’s put one and one together.” An anti-theonomist says, “Let’s not.” Dr. Gordon is worried about high divorce rates. I have a solution to this problem. Re-write the civil laws governing adultery so that the victimized spouse can have a civil court order the execution of a convicted adulterous spouse and his/her consort. The divorce rate would drop — dare I say it? — like a stone.

Something else that would drop like a stone is the poll number of a politician directly linked with either one of these theories of civil law. No wonder many social conservatives are out in force trying to deny that these movements have any consequence or have any influence on Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann.
In 2008, Barack Obama’s associations religious and otherwise were considered fair game for his opponents. If the same is true this time around, then 2012 should be a bonanza for the opponents of Perry and/or Bachmann should they make it on the GOP ticket.
See also Part 2 and Part 3 in the series about what dominionists would do with gays. Part 3 also examines what one thread of dominionist (theonomic Christian Reconstructionists would do with anyone who failed to keep Mosaic law – e.g., adulterers, blasphemers, idolators, disobedient children, etc.)

Sometimes You Need a Herescope to See the Dominionism

While those who want to bring Moses back are lamenting the media attention they are getting, Sarah Leslie author of the Herescope blog, stays steady. Herescope reports frequently on figures in various movements, sometimes known as the New Apostolic Reformation, Christian Reconstructionism, dominionism and theonomy. There are real differences among those in these movements but they all seem to hold a common desire for civil law in the Unites States to reflect the law of Moses.
Some of her most recent posts (e.g, Denying Dominionism) address the consternation of some Reconstructionists, New Apostolic Reformers and dominionists about the attention they are getting. Apparently, even C. Peter Wagner took pen in hand to deny that the Seven Mountains teaching is anything to worry about.
Wagner says this about dominionism:

When Jesus came, he brought the kingdom of God and He expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth. This is what we mean by dominionism.

When Kingdom minded politicians “take whatever action is needed” to oppose those who disagree with them, those who are not in the evangelical club have a right to resist. By this and other points, Wagner proved that dominionism is not a construct of the left. Wagner can say he doesn’t want theocracy but to those who are not evangelical, what he proposes may seem too close for comfort. not evangelicals.
I don’t agree with every point Leslie makes but I think her blog is a great place to spend time if you want to see the Dominionism.

It is dominion we are after…

Right Wing Watch has noted a backlash among some evangelicals about the term Dominionism. Seems some evangelicals don’t like the term applied to them. I want to address this more in a future post, but for now, I want to note a key statement about dominion made by Peter Waldron’s co-author, George Grant. Recall that Waldron was key to Michele Bachmann’s straw poll win in Iowa on August 13 and is now in South Carolina attempting to line up evangelicals for Bachmann.
Grant and Waldron wrote a book called Rebuilding the Walls: A Biblical Strategy for Restoring America’s Greatness in 1987. I am looking for a copy of this book. For now, consider this passage from George Grant’s book Changing the Guard, published by Dominion Press (!) in the same year, 1987.

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power ofthe Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.
If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.
True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God’s rule. Fortunately, because of the theocratic orientation of our founding fathers, our nation has virtually all the apparatus extant to implement such a reclamation. Unfortunately, the enemies of the Gospel have hand-in-hand eroded the strength of those godly foundations.

Mr. Grant and Mr. Waldron would like to restore America’s greatness. Waldron’s remaining website is dedicated to this end. If you donate $25, you can get a copy of the book with Mr. Grant. Note the purpose of the book:

Rebuilding the Walls: A Biblical Strategy for Restoring America’s Greatness. I wrote this book 25-years ago. My editor, Dr. George Grant, and I pulled the precepts and principles necessary to develop a deployable strategy for Christians to restore America’s greatness.

Currently, Mr. Waldron is in South Carolina on behalf of candidate Bachmann. I wonder if he is deploying any strategies.

Bachmann staffer: Perry is Saul and Bachmann is David

The visibility of veteran GOP political organizer Peter Waldron has risen a good bit since The Atlantic broke a story today about Waldron’s 2006 detention in Uganda on allegations of illegal gun possession. Waldron has a lengthy resume but now includes work for GOP Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. Specifically, the campaign acknowledged that Waldron helped deliver the Iowa straw poll win last weekend.
According to The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta, Alice Stewart, Bachmann’s press secretary, said about Waldron: “Michele’s faith is an important part of her life and Peter did a tremendous job with our faith outreach in Iowa. We are fortunate to have him on our team and look forward to having him expanding his efforts in several states.”
Apparently the next state is South Carolina. In a comment on his Facebook page, Waldron said he would soon be in Columbia and cover the state. We get a hint in one comment about what he might tell evangelicals he hopes to win over to Bachmann. In one comment, Waldron compared Rick Perry to King Saul and Bachmann to King David. If you have been to Sunday School, you know that Saul was a tall, good looking guy who eventually had a bad end because he fell out of God’s favor. God placed His blessing on King David instead.  Here is the comment:

In another comment on his page, he says Bachmann “fights with the anointing of God upon her.” Waldron has some ties to the Christian Reconstruction movement, having co-authored a bookwith Reconstructionist George Grant. In the above comment, he seems to see America as a covenant nation with God much in the same way the Old Testament depicts the Jewish people as having a special covenant with God.
I posted first on this here and then have a three part video interview from YouTube here.

More on The Response: Did Hitler mimic the Indian reservations?

Here is a tale of two supporters of The Response.
John Benefiel is founder of the Heartland Apostolic Prayer Network and endorser of the upcoming prayer meeting, The Response, initiated by Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and funded by the American Family Association. Benefiel has focused on repairing relationships with Native Americans. His reasons are spiritual. For instance, he teaches that Oklahoma’s high divorce rate is due to the fact that Oklahoma was once home to the Indian Territory, a place where the government broke covenants with Native Americans. Over the years, people have been inspired by dark forces to break their marriage vows because the government broke vows with the native nations of the land. Thus, the support for making amends with native people is not simply to do the right thing, rather the big picture is to clear the land of demonic influence so that Benefiel’s version of Christianity can take hold.
Bryan Fischer is an Issues Analyst for the AFA, the group funding the event endorsed by Mr. Benefiel. Mr. Fischer has said that Native Americas were morally disqualified from ownership of their lands because of their savagry and immorality. The AFA website provides Mr. Fischer a forum to say the Indians got what they deserved because they refused to convert to Christianity. Fischer and Mr. Benefiel surely seem to disagree about this matter.
Mr. Fischer also preaches that the Nazi party was full of gays, Hitler was gay and needed gays to enforce his evil intentions. According to Fischer, gays in the Nazi military gave the world 6 million dead Jews.  
Mr. Benefiel has something to say about Hitler and the Nazi era as well. Roll the tape:

The only reference to this possibility that I can find is John Toland’s biography of Adolf Hitler, where he wrote:

If we believe Bryan Fischer (which I don’t), then Hitler was some kind of gay and his brutality was because of it. Now we hear, from Apostle Benefiel and author John Toland, that the Nazis were inspired by the cruelty of the Christian nation America toward our indigenous people. Wow.
Benefiel and President Obama have something in common according to Fischer. According to Fischer when we consider America’s treatment of Native Americans, there are two conceptual options:

The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence. 
So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations and history. 
A lot is at stake here. If Americans believe that the entire history of our nation rests on a horribly evil foundation, then there is nothing to be proud of in American history, and our president is correct to identify America as the source of all evil in the world and to make a career out of apologizing for her very existence. 
If, however, there is a moral and ethical basis for our displacement of native American tribes, and if our westward expansion and settlement are in fact consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations, then Americans have much to be proud of.

On the matter of native people and the evil perpetrated, Benefiel and President Obama are on the same page.   
Obviously making amends with Native Americans is a big deal to Benefiel. And to his credit, he has investigated and documented the evil treatment of indigenous people by the American government. However, given his belief in curses and apologies, it is hard for me to understand how he can endorse an event like The Response, funded by the AFA, which condones Bryan Fischer’s derogatory views of Native Americans as a race of people.   
One observation that I can make here is that Christian conservatives are not as monolithic a group as those outside the group think we are. Since I would be somewhere in there, the boundaries expand to even greater reaches.
It does raise for me a question about the intent of events like The Response. To which god are these folks praying? Are they praying to the one who demands an apology for evil done to Native Americans, or the one who empowered the Europeans to displace the indigenous people?
Well, at least The Response is bringing people of competing ideologies together.
(Thanks to Kyle Mantyla at Right Wing Watch for the tip.)
Video is derived from this sermon.