Warren Throckmorton

Bruce Wilson at Alternet has much detail on this story, including background on the relationship of Oyet to the New Apostolic Reformation.
Newly appointed Minister of Health Christine Ondoa is also a minister in Julius Oyet’s Lifeline church. Oyet is a Ugandan proponent of the Seven Mountains teaching which calls Christians to gain dominion in a nation by gaining prominence in all domains of society, including the government.
Oyet prophesied Ondoa’s rise to the Cabinet. Oyet is well connected to the government via relationships with President Museveni and his deputy status with David Bahati (in 2010 Oyet was deputized to collect petition signatures in support of the anti-gay bill), author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The Bahati bill co-sponsor, Benson Ogwal is a longtime friend according to this report.

Making reference to Revelation 12:11, finance state minister Fred Jacan Omach said Ondoa’s appointment is a sign that “we have a spirit-filled President”.
UPC MP Benson Obua Ogwal, a long-time friend of Ondoa, said having known her integrity and incorruptible character, her elevation did not surprise him.

Many Ugandan protesters would be surprised to hear that they have a spirit-filled President.
While this appointment may be more political favor than prophetic fulfillment, the elevation of ministers to government Ministry is in keeping with the Seven Mountains mandate.

Recently, Apostle C. Peter Wagner wrote to his followers about the attention the New Apostolic Reformation is getting in the media. In it, Wagner downplayed the organization structure of the movement saying:

I am rather fascinated at the lists of individuals whom the media glibly connects with the NAR. I’m sure that some of them wouldn’t even recognize the term. In many cases, however, they would fit the NAR template, but since the NAR has no membership list they themselves would need to say whether they consider themselves affiliated or not.

and…

Some of the authors I read expressed certain frustrations because they found it difficult to get their arms around the NAR. They couldn’t find a top leader or even a leadership team. There was no newsletter. The NAR didn’t have an annual meeting. There was no printed doctrinal statement or code of ethics. This was very different from dealing with traditional denominations. The reason behind this is that, whereas denominations are legal structures, the NAR is a relational structure. Everyone is related to, or aligned, with an apostle or apostles. This alignment is voluntary. There is no legal tie that binds it. In fact, some have dual alignment or multiple alignment. Apostles are not in competition with each other, they are in cahoots. They do not seek the best for themselves, but for those who choose to align with them. If the spotlight comes on them, they will accept it, but they do not seek it.

I think I found some members of the New Apostolic Reformation.
The NAR as a ideological movement does not have a list, but Wagner’s International Coalition of Apostles does. Here is a link to it.
However, if you click it you will find a 404 Error page that says:

I’m sorry, but the page or file appears to be missing!
An out-of-date bookmark/favorite.
A failed search from the searchbar (try another search query).
A search engine that has an out-of-date listing for this site.
A mis-typed address.

One can no longer get to the list of 200+ people who are considered apostles by Wagner’s organization. You can however click the member section and find this page to sign in.

That is to say, if you are a member, you can sign in.
I don’t know when this changed but it was within the last year. Here is the 2009 list via Internet archives. These people are added by invitation only and are members of this elite group. There is a conference for ICA members in November.  Wagner says there is no leadership structure or statement of faith but this page has a statement of faith and this one describes a structure. Wagner says there is no leadership team but the website lists an “Apostolic Council.” 

The Presiding Apostle appoints an ICA Apostolic Council to give advice and accountability. ICA members are free to bring any concerns which may arise to any or all council members.
The Apostolic Council includes: George Bakalov, Mark Chironna, James Chosa, Ron Cottle, Naomi Dowdy, John Eckhardt, Pat Francis, Bill Hamon, Dan Juster, John P. Kelly, Joseph Mattera, John Macknamara, Mel Mullen, Dennis Peacocke, Mark Pfeifer,  Ed Silvoso, C. Peter Wagner, Doris Wagner, Lance Wallnau, and H. Daniel Wilson.
Contact information is available to Members only in the Member section.

 So there is an organization of apostles with a statement of faith, a conference and structure for entrance into the organization by invitation only. Remember that Wagner said this about the New Apostolic Reformation:

The reason behind this is that, whereas denominations are legal structures, the NAR is a relational structure. Everyone is related to, or aligned, with an apostle or apostles. This alignment is voluntary.

 Each apostle has his or her own network and organization, some of which are quite large and organized (e.g., Cindy Jacobs, Generals International). These organizations and churches follow the organization of the apostle who fits into the movement via membership in the ICA. It may not be tightly structured but to avoid mentioning the members of the ICA is to obscure a critical element of the movement.
Hallelujah! They once were lost, but now they are found!
 

On Monday and Tuesday, I published posts examining what dominionists (short hand for Christians who believe Old Testament law should be the basis for civil law) recommend for people who violate aspects of Mosaic law. Today, I briefly examine a 2011 book by Stephen Che Halbrook titled, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws.
The book is an extension of a Master’s thesis presented at Regent University in 2008. The thesis and the book calls on government to use the Old Testament moral code as a basis for civil law, including the death penalty for blasphemy, idolatry, sabbath-breaking, disobedient children, adulterers and gays.
Halbrook runs the Theonomy Resources and teaches at The New Geneva Christian Leadership Academy. New Geneva is a college-level school which is endorsed by American Vision’s Gary DeMar, Chaplain Ray Moore, of Frontline Ministries and the Exodus Mandate, and Mark Rushdoony, son of R. J. Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism.
Basically, Halbrook says that capital punishment for violators of biblical law benefits society. Throughout the book he makes the case that the laws governing all of us should reflect “God’s law as applied to the realm of civil government (which is mostly found in the Older Testament).” (p.xxi). Here is a sampling of recommendations for capital sanctions. On disobedient children he writes:

To all this we must add that capital sanctions for those who repudiate parental authority protect the family from treason. Many today would think capital punishment for treason against the family is extreme, but on the other hand, capital punishment for treason against the state is a necessity. (p. 205)

On Sabbath-breaking:

Given the evidence that criminality begins with Sabbath breaking, we see the importance of the Sabbath capital sanction. Fear of execution by the state deters many would-be criminals from embracing a life of crime and executing innocent people. Thus the more lax society becomes regarding the Bible’s penalty for Sabbath-breaking, the more society can expect to contend with crime. “[T]he wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and so we shouldn’t be surprised that the wages of the heinous sin of Sabbath breaking on a societal level results in death on a societal level. (p. 191)

In general, God’s law as understood by Reconstructionist authors is to be the law of the land. On sanctions against blasphemy, Halbrook writes:

In sum, the purpose of civil government is not primarily to defend the rights of man, but the rights of God. God’s rights over the state entail the state’s requirement to recognize God as Lord over the state (i.e., the highest political authority), and the state’s requirement to execute God’s wrath in His prescribed manner. This in no way diminishes human rights, but increases them. As we can see from the necessity of theocentric laws that we discussed, to disregard God’s rights—which are the rights from which all human rights derive—is to disregard man’s rights. And what right of God is more fundamental than not to be blasphemed? (p. 155)

This is similar to the thinking of Islamic clerics who defend anti-blasphemy laws in Islamic countries such as Pakistan, where Christian mother of five, Asia Bibisits in a prison cell waiting to see if her sentence of death for allegedly blaspheming Mohammed will be carried out. Of course, among the other capital sanctions, Halbrook has a chapter on “sodomite” acts. He begins this chapter:

Before exploring this topic, we must note that Christians must evangelize sodomites. This in no way conflicts with the capital sanction against those convicted of engaging in sodomite acts, a sanction which helps protect potential sodomites from themselves as well as society, as we shall see, from suicide.

Aren’t you warmed by the fact that he wants to “evangelize” and “protect potential sodomites from themselves?” Halbrook’s chapter about gays is filled with quotes from Scott Lively’s book The Pink Swastika (the book is refuted here). Drawing on Lively’s characterization of National Socialism as a “sodomite movement,” Halbrook justifies his position:

But as we have seen, justifying sodomy on the grounds of it being a private act doesn’t work, because it contributes greatly to a society’s cup of iniquity that can result in God’s destruction of that society. What good is it for a society to promote the freedom for all to participate in the lifestyle of their choice if a society isn’t around to promote it?

The 503 page book is comprehensive in defense of applying Old Testament law to civil life, even including a chapter defending stoning and burning as methods of capital punishment. One endorser of the book is Buddy Hanson. Hanson is the Alabama representative to the Exodus Mandate, a home school support group which calls for all Christians to remove their children from the public school. Hanson wrote in support:

With God’s grace, God Is Just: A Defense Of The Old Testament Civil Laws will be used to bring American Christians to repentance and back to honoring God’s Word through their daily decisions.

Halbrook cites Hanson (as well as R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, etc.) as providing justification for imposing biblical laws on a society. Halbrook writes:

And so Buddy Hanson is correct: “By not ‘imposing’ Christian beliefs on others, we allow them to ‘impose’ their beliefs on us.”455 (This endorses imposing Christian beliefs about biblical law—it does not endorse imposing conversions.) Pluralism is no less impositional than other political system—and actually, it is potentially the most impositional. Being polytheistic and thereby lacking anything beyond the coercion of the state by which to unite others, pluralism naturally tends towards outright totalitarianism, and even imperialism. (pp. 169-170).

Do unto others before they do unto you.
Some readers may believe I am giving too much attention to what appears to be a movement on the fringe of the evangelical community. Clearly, a large portion of evangelicals would be offended by this book and feel out of place in the churches where this teaching is offered. If anything, bringing this to light highlights just how diverse evangelicalism is.
Still, theonomy (the term those in the movement prefer) cannot be ignored. The groups in the theonomy world (American Vision, Exodus Mandate, Vision Forum) have political influence within the Christian Right and seek broader impact. If Halbrook is correct, some theonomists have designs on infiltrating the broader Christian Right to pursue their goals. Mostly, Halbrook criticizes the Christian right for being aligned with political conservatism, writing

The Christian Right—the largest group of politically-active Christians in America—rejects the Bible’s requirement of the state to uphold the O.T. civil laws. Instead, it embraces political conservatism. But conservatism, as pointed out, lacks an unchanging moral anchor (see Appendix D). Thus the Christian Right is handicapped by its marriage with political conservatism.

However, quoting a 1992 book by Matthew Moen, Halbrook holds out hope that perhaps Reconstructionists could save the Christian right:

Other evidence that the secularization of the Christian Right may be limited to that time frame [the Reagan era] is found in the emergence of Christian Reconstructionism. It emphasizes the utility of the first five books of the Old Testament for ordering contemporary American society, a goal that Bruce Barron and Anson Shupe have noted proceeds well beyond the Christian Right in scope yet has certain affinities related to ‘recapturing’ institutions from secular forces. … [T]he penetration of the Christian Right by Reconstructionists may halt, or even reverse, the process of secularization described. (from Moen, 1992, p. 425 in Halbrook).

While such a take over may be no more likely now than in 1992, I am concerned that theonomists and dominionists of several persuasions, notably the New Apostolic Reformation movement, continues to make gains in GOP and evangelical circles.
See also Part 1 and Part 2 in the series about what dominionists would do with gays. Part 1 examines the differences between New Apostolic Reformation dominionists and the Christian Reconstructionist variety. Part 2 briefly describes the views of the American Family Association spokesperson on criminalizing homosexual activity.

Right Wing Watch first reported that Bryan Fischer today answered my question from yesterday asking what dominionists would do with gays.

Fischer: Both of the cases that went to the United States Supreme Court that dealt with the issue of whether states should criminalize sodomy, and of course they still ought to be able to do it, every state in the union criminalized sodomy until 1962 and then forty nine states until 1972, then they began to fall like dominoes. But by the time of the founding until the late 20th Century, homosexual activity was a felony offense in the United States of America, there is no reason why it cannot be a criminal offense once again, absolutely none.

I think the Supreme Court would object to Mr. Fischer’s assertion that homosexual activity could be recriminalized.
See also:
See also Part 1 and Part 3 in the series about what dominionists would do with gays. Part 1 examines the differences between New Apostolic Reformation dominionists and the Christian Reconstructionist variety. Part 3 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.

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.)