17 Comments

“If It Quacks Like a Duck…” – The Dominionism Cover-Up


There is a considerable amount of backpeddling going on now that Dominionism has made the national news. A chorus of establishment media have stuck their heads into the sand are are blindly crying, “Dominionism? What dominionism? I don’t see any Dominionism!” Most of these reporters who have never heard of it didn’t bother to take the time to research it, and therefore say it doesn’t exist. Joining the liberal media in this chorus is a host of evangelical leaders, some of them longtime Dominionists, who are spouting the same denials. What strange bedfellows indeed!

The most prominent denial, of course is C. Peter Wagner’s public letter, covered in our previous post, in which he asserts that his Dominionist NAR is neither Dominionist, nor a cult. Also issuing a denial was prominent Dominionist Os Hillman who helped launched the 7 Mountains movement and runs the reclaim7mountains website. Hillman is retrenching. He issued a syrupy brief statement[1] emphasizing that “Dominion, or perhaps a better word to use is influence, is a result of our love and obedience to God, not a goal to be achieved.” However, the rest of his statement confirms the basic Dominionism platform of Genesis 1:28, adding in the neo-Kuyperian spheres and the idea of restoring heaven to earth:

This is why Jesus prayed that whatever was in heaven would be manifested on the earth. He was wanting to restore all that had been lost. His desire for His people has always been for them to be at the top of every sphere of society….

The NAR isn’t the only group promoting the 7 mountains. Wagner and his NAR crowd are the ones getting all of the media attention because of their zany antics. But there is a whole backup crew of organizations that have been around for decades, pumping out the doctrines of restoring or redeeming the fallen culture by integrating the Church into the various hubs of Society. This isn’t about the narrow group of Reconstructionists that the mainstream press has caricatured for years. Rather, generic Dominionism has now reached out into the mainstream evangelical milieu via conferences, books, technology, and media. There is even sophisticated image marketing for branding certain forms of Dominionism.

So who is doing the “spin” and denying Dominionism? An interesting mixture (of) media and evangelical leaders. For example:…

See, Herescope: Denying Dominionism – The Dominionism Cover-Up 

17 comments on ““If It Quacks Like a Duck…” – The Dominionism Cover-Up

  1. I find it so disconcerting to find Christians decrying other believers for wanting to do something so outrageous as bring God’s Word to bear on every area of life. Do you prefer the anti-Christian, secular humanist, evolutionary worldview?

    I am of the Christian Reconstruction type. I do not agree with the hyper-Pentacostalism and Charismatics of the NAR folk. But that does not mean their desire to bring every thought, word and deed captive to the obedience in Christ is wrong. Too many Christians have banished God the Creator of all things from having any say about his creation other than in the areas of personal piety and Eternity. Are you one of them?

    Regarding what the dominion theology of Christian Reconstruction is all about, how about getting it straight from the horse’s mouth? Listen to RJ Rushdoony’s comments and tell me what is taught is to be feared and eschewed by Christians: http://chalcedon.edu/topics/dominion/ Be sure to scroll down a little to get to the audio.

    • John, Rushdoony is wrong. No where in the new covenant are followers of Christ told to rule over society, change the culture, or take dominion over the the world, but are told,

      Matthew 28:18-20: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

      Acts 1:8: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

      Our commission is to,

      16:15-16: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

      By the grace allotted to us we are salt and light in this wicked world,

      Matthew 5:13-14: Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

      Philippians 2: 15: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

      Dominion/Reconstruction theology is not biblical. period. It is heresy.

  2. Looking at your link John Hendrickson then at the unadulterated scripture pjmiller has so aptly applied in her response leaves me in NO doubt of the deception that this post conveys.

    • Sylvia, what does it mean to be salt & light? What does Jesus mean when he says to teach the nations all he has commanded? One may truncate those things and assert they only refer to getting saved and then waiting for Heaven but the plain teaching of the Scriptures is that all of God’s Word applies to all of life.

      I do not dispute that all begins with regeneration and faith in Christ Jesus. But that is not the end. No, we have a duty to bring the light of God’s Word to all spheres of life.

      And I will once again make clear that nobody is talking about taking over and forcing the Bible down unbelievers throats. That is why I put the link to the audio of Rushdoony. So, for people to continually assert that falsehood because that is what they think the lordship of Jesus implies is plain wrong.

      Tell me, if Christians are not to assert the truth of God’s Word and the lordhip of Christ Jesus in all spheres of life then what is the source of authority and ethics? It would be fallen men. But God has given us his unadulterated Word and Jesus came to redeem man so they could teach all nations what he commands. And he said (twice) he did not come to destroy the law) and That that they would abide till heaven and earth pass away. And he warned against any who would teach the breaking of one of the least of the commandments. And, as with him and the writers of the NT, all their authority came from the OT. Are we supposed to now think it has been tossed away?

    • Dave, thanks for the link. I would prefer to say that evangelicals are telling the truth about this alleged “dominionism”, which doesn’t really exist except in the imaginations of some conspiracy theorists in the media.

    • Great link! According to C Peter Wagner, the NAR is not trying to exercise control over government, but only trying to “populate” the seven mountains. Really? The only reason they are supporting candidates for political office is to “populate” some mountain? All the talk about “taking back the country” is not about power and control? I have no problem with Christians running for office. But when it is pursued with the intent to enforce facets of “Judeo-Christian morality by force of law, that IS dominionism AND theocracy. C Peter Wagner may not be able to figure that out, but that is what it is all about. This is NOT just about Christians running for office (in fact they would suffer a Mormon if that were all that were available). When you really listen to the campaign talk, you get the picture. They THEMSELVES like to describe it as a CULTURE WAR. Where does the Bible instruct us to engage in a “culture war”? The whole thing reeks of dominionism and theocracy and C Peter Wagner has bought into it all the way.

  3. George, it is worth remembering that, in Wagner’s words, “The NAR is not an organization. … It has no leader.” Rather, it is a loosely defined movement. So it is not the NAR as an organisation which is endorsing Rick Perry. If indeed anyone is doing that, it is certain Christian leaders who are associated with the NAR. I don’t know if it is true that any of them have “the intent to enforce facets of “Judeo-Christian morality by force of law”. But if they do, they have stepped away from the main stream of the NAR, as described by Wagner, into a fringe position. It is about as logical to discredit the NAR by the actions of a few untypical members as it is to discredit the entire Republican Party by some of the wilder antics of the Tea Party, or the entire Democratic Party by the what some of its extremists might say.

    • Hi Peter…

      Wagner does disclaim it being a proper organization, but in the shared vision (and goal) of all those associated with the NAR, they are united. So in a broader sense it is an organization.

      As C. Peter Wagner was developing the doctrines that would comprise the basics of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), he was also building its structure. This structure would be become a downline hierarchical structure that would become a new reformation.

      This New Apostolic Reformation, also referred to as a Second Reformation, would supplant and reverse the old (First) Reformation both in doctrine and accountability structures. We have written extensively about this structure and theology on Herescope in the past.[1]

      Examine the words “new authority structure” in Exhibit 1 above and you will discover that Wagner is positing spiritual authority not in God’s WORD, but in the “Holy Spirit in individuals.” According to longtime Wagner critic, Mike Oppenheimer, “The problem is that Wagner cannot recognize what contradicts Scripture because he is not using the Bible as his absolute guide but new revelation from new prophets.”

      The “new leadership training” that C. Peter Wagner refers to above is apostolic in structure. But it is based on the marketing and change agent training provided by Leadership Network to over a generation of evangelical pastors and emerging leaders. Much of this training involved how to manipulate the sheep in the pews to transition them into this new transformation. Borrowing techniques from state-of-the-art research in psychology and sociology, including techniques from the occult world, these men were trained in “continuing education” (TQM, continuous quality improvement) to overhaul the church both doctrinally and structurally.[3]

      The “new ministry focus” involved the cultural mandate. The old “mandate” of the church was simply presenting the Gospel of Salvation message. But this new cultural mandate, according to Wagner, is the original assignment given by God to man in Genesis 1. Wagner’s revisionism turns it into a “dominion mandate,” and as a former church growth leader he tells important history of how this became part of the global mission movement:

      “The cultural mandate, which some refer to as Christian social responsibility goes as far back as the Garden of Eden. After God created Adam and Eve, He said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing”…

      Both the cultural mandate and the evangelistic mandate are essential parts of biblical mission, in my opinion. Neither is optional. There is a growing consensus on this point in Evangelical circles. This was not true as early as twenty-two years ago when the Berlin World Congress on Evangelism was held in 1966. One of the first Evangelicals to stress the cultural mandate in a public forum was Horace Fenton of the Latin America Mission at the Wheaton Congress on the Church’s Worldwide Mission, also held in 1966. Following that, the social consciousness generated by the social upheavals of the 1960’s brought the cultural mandate to prominence until it was given a relatively high profile on the platform of the International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne in 1974.” [4]

      Wagner’s original “cultural mandate” mission drastically took a turn for the worse when he began to openly espouse his “dominion mandate.” To Wagner, dominion on earth was something the church must seize back from Satan and his minions — not just culture but also governments. It would then become possible to reverse the effects of the Fall and restore paradise on Earth:

      See more here: Documenting Dominionism

      While Wagner may have passed on the daily responsibilities to Dutch Sheets, Wagner still steers the car,

      January 31, 2009: Letter from Dutch Sheets,

      “My dear friend and partner in ministry Chuck Pierce stated prophetically to me that there was a major shift coming to the Apostolic Reformation. He then challenged me to hear from the Holy Spirit as to what this new phase looked like and what my leadership role in it was to be.

      Chuck felt that this new assignment for my life was what Dr. Peter Wagner had seen in a dream concerning me. In Peter’s dream I had moved into the driver’s seat of a vehicle in which he and I were riding. We were left to interpret what that “vehicle” represented. The three of us now believe it was the Apostolic Reformation with all three of its components.

      The plan involves taking the apostolic, prophetic and prayer movements to a much more practical level, resulting in regional transformation.

      Most of us in the Apostolic Reformation have been transformed by the movement individually, as have our congregations and networks. However, if we are honest, we must acknowledge that for most of us this has not resulted in regional cultural change.

      For this to occur, we must expand from relational apostolic networks primarily, to functional apostolic alliances, as well. God has given us (Dr. Wagner, Chuck Pierce, Robert Henderson, and me) a blueprint to accomplish this.

      More here: Dutch Sheets, new face of the NAR & info on the US Apostolic Alliance

      Sounds pretty organized to me…

  4. PJ, why should I take your quotation of your own words, apparently taken from “Herescope” whatever that might be, as more authoritative information about what Wagner does and teaches than Wagner’s own words? Lies (if that is what I see here) repeated all round the Internet are still lies.

    • Peter you can accept or not accept any reference, or for that matter, anything i post; its your decision. Believe i told you the same-thing concerning another post of mine you disagreed with in the past. 😉

  5. Peter Wagner states that his aim is to have “kingdom minded” people in every one of the 7 mountains. One of those mountains is religion. “Kingdom minded” refers to a particular theology that not everyone adheres to. He then goes on to talk about apostles and prophets stating that in his view God reveals new things and secrets to his prophets who align with the apostles. This gives the people who have been “called” as apostles and prophets an enormous amount of power and it is to be expected that those who are conquering other “mountains” such as the political sphere will be expected to listen and take heed to what the apostles and prophets say. He states that the apostle is commissioned by “other respected and qualified leaders”. This must mean that a structure comprising of “leaders” is envisaged. Suppose then that I do not agree to submit to the apostles and prophets that have been appointed by NAR? Suppose I think that Cindy Jacobs talks a lot of rubbish and I refuse to come under her authority as a prophetic voice. Will I have a place on the “mountain” of religion. Do I even want to share that “mountain” with them. I think that it would be expected that I would submit to their leadership and to the apostles and prophets appointed by them.

  6. PJ, I have not replied because I am still catching up after losing our electric for six days due to Irene.

    As I said, I am baffled that believers find it so abhorrent to have God’s Word be the moral guide for a nation.Paul tells us the magistrates place is to reward good and punish evil. How is that to be defined? Is it better to have the fallen reason of man be the source of our ethics & morality? That is the alternative. Jeremiah reminds us that the heart is deceitful and not to be trusted. Romans 1 tells us how the fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and would prefer to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Even the church needs the unchanging, infallible Word of God to keep it on track (and we can see how hard that is with all the differences there are). So how can we expect fallen man to rightly discern truth?

    Here is another quote of Rushdoony: “Our purpose must not be to capture church or state, but to place ourselves and all of society under our King.”-R.J.Rushdoony, The Necessary Future, 2001. You can see he did not advocate taking over or anything of the kind. What he did advocate was for Christians to be consistent by acknowledging that He who created everything ought to be looked to for a correct understanding of how man is to live. So when Jesus says all authority has been given to Him, there are no exceptions. It is the believer’s duty to proclaim the truth he tells us as revealed in the Bible.
    As far as as taking over goes and gaining power, it is not the Christian’s duty. As for teaching the nations to obey all Jesus taught, that is their duty.

    • Hi John, sorry to hear you and your family were without electric. Hope you and all your neighbors are getting some-what back to normal.

      As I said, I am baffled that believers find it so abhorrent to have God’s Word be the moral guide for a nation.

      John, first Jesus did not come to change nations but individual people. If we look upon his actions during his time here as an example, he never tried to impose God’s moral standards, as found in the Word, upon any city/land/nation he traveled through, rather, he taught the Kingdom of God to those who would “willingly” listen. The bible is our moral guide: why is that? It’s because the Holy Spirit dwells with the believer and he (the Spirit) is to,

      have a moral influence on our live and thus produce the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the executor of God’s nature. He is the source of the new birth and brings out the nature of Christ in the individual believer. He conforms us to the nature of Jesus, who is God as well as the ultimate human. He reveals the nature of God by transforming believers to be like him. His indwelling restores the image of God in man that became damaged by the fall, now we can reflect God’s moral qualities and characteristics as He intended. The Fruit of the spirit is only displayed when we walk in the spirit. All these qualities are reflective of Jesus Christ who was seen in the flesh. link

      Without the Spirit man is lost and has no desire to follow the Word of God!

      Knowing this, how could we ever perceive that millions of people (a nation) would accept God’s Word as their moral guide?

      Many Christians today in America, want to impose (by political means and/or by taking “dominion) the moral standards for God’s people upon the lost. First off, it will never happen, but lets pretend for a moment and say it could: what would we have? Nothing but millions of lost people, dead in their sins, who may appear clean on the outside but are still filthy on the inside,

      Matthew 23 – 25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

      Is that our job…our calling? It wasn’t Jesus’ nor was it the goal of the early disciples. It’s putting the cart before the horse.

  7. I believe the problem here is at least twofold. First, it keeps being asserted that the goal is to “impose” God’s ethical standards as he has revealed in the Bible. That is not what I am talking about. I agree that without regeneration of hearts on a wide scale will a nation willing agree to follow God’s moral standards (not that there are any others standards acceptable to God). Nevertheless, they are the only true code of ethics. Why shouldn’t a Christian say it is wrong according to God to do or not do this or that? Isn’t that what they believe? Would it be wrong for a nation, regardless of how many were wholehearted believers, to pass laws that agree with God’s Word? God’s Law reflects his holiness and character. Should a believer deny that? Furthermore, even if they were not passed, the mere declaration of what God says is right or wrong would be a challenge to the hearts of those who do not believe. And since God’s Word does not come back void, it could become an instrument of either awakening a heart or further condemnation on the day of judgement. Doesn’t the Gospel speak to the rebellious heart by revealing its opposition to God’s Law?

    I would again remind us that Jesus said to make nations disciples and to teach them to obey his commandments. Note he does not say individuals, but nations. Nations consist of individuals, but they are still nations.

    Second, there are ethical standards by which right and wrong are to be determined. For the believer to say what God has revealed does apply in all facets of his life is inconsistent with what it means to follow Christ. Will God not judge all mankind by those standards? And won’t those who are not in Him be condemned by his standards?

    Since the beginning of my chiming in here, I have made it clear nobody is talking about “imposing” God’s Law. But, in one sense, God does impose it. There will be no excuses on anyone’s last day that He should not “impose” His Law and judge them accordingly. The point being that the Law is there, whether or not a nation codifies it or not. Just because some reject it does not mean God takes it away or says they are excused from it. If we are his ambassadors on earth then it is incumbent upon us to be consistent in reflecting his image in us in all areas of life by declaring all he has taught us, not just a few preferred parts.

    • I would again remind us that Jesus said to make nations disciples and to teach them to obey his commandments. Note he does not say individuals, but nations. Nations consist of individuals, but they are still nations.

      John you’re splitting hairs. You cannot make nations disciples, only individual people. Matthew 28: 19

      Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

      Matthew 28: 19 corresponds with Mark 16: 15,

      And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

      Second, there are ethical standards by which right and wrong are to be determined. For the believer to say what God has revealed does apply in all facets of his life is inconsistent with what it means to follow Christ.

      Of course the Word is to be applied to all areas of the life of a believer. But we cannot expect unbelievers to desire to make the same application. Which is all the more reason to go preach/teach the gospel to all people, as Jesus commanded. If we do that, the Spirit of God will draw them to Christ.

  8. PJ, if you look at the OT, you will see God deals with and judges nations as nations, not merely as a collection of individuals. So, your hair splitting comment may sound pithy but it means nothing.

    I have already made clear that any changes need to be bottom up, not top down, and that the changes begin with individual hearts. Nevertheless, it does not take the conversion of every last individual to affect a nation’s ethics. Thus, this does not preclude nations obeying whatsoever Christ has commanded. Jesus told us to do so.

    You say “Of course the Word is to be applied to all areas of the life of a believer. But we cannot expect unbelievers to desire to make the same application.” Just because unbelievers may not desire to keep God’s ethical standards does not excuse them from being informed of them or even living under them when a law of the nation. Why do you think God holds unbelievers to a different standard? If he does not, does their unbelief mean we ought not tell them what God’s standards are? On that basis, we could not even begin to bring the Gospel because its message is based on their disobedience. And since they don’t believe and are disinclined to obey then there is no point to tell them, according to you. Of course, the opposite is true. So, if the magistrate or a business man in their capacity as such break one of God’s commandments, it is imperative that the believer tell them that God would have us live His way. They are not to say to themselves, “They don’t believe God’s Word, probably will not follow it, so I should not tell them what it is.” That is what you advocate. Likewise, it is imperative for the believer to advocate for laws and practices to conform to God’s Law even before they are broken. Either way it is the declaration of God’s ethical imperatives for all mankind, not just those who agree. Those inclined by nature of their fallen heart to reject them will either have their hearts furthered hardened or moved to repent.

    Lastly, God judges not merely for sins of the heart but also for those actually committed. So to have a law that forbids bestiality which people obey because it is the law reduces the sins they will pay for as well as the sins of the nation. “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.“ (1Ti 1:9-11) Note how Paul associates the Law with the Gospel. And the law to which he referred was the OT Law.

    Lastly, here is a link that I hope will further disabuse you of the idea that all reconstructionists are only interested in a top down, forced imposition of the Bible: http://americanvision.org/5130/seven-mountains-dominionism-not-the-same-brand/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Rooted and Grounded In Christ

Teaching Sound Doctrine & Glorifying Christ

Music from Broken Chords

Down in the human heart, crush'd by the tempter, Feelings lie buried that grace can restore; Touched by a loving heart, wakened by kindness Chords that were broken will vibrate once more. From the Hymn "Rescue the Perishing" by Fanny J. Crosby

Lead Me

"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully."

I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist

It's the end (of the end) of the world as we know it...

Disrupting Culture

A blog by Dr. Jonathan Welton

%d bloggers like this: