I generally like Peter Kirk, but his stance in defending Wagner (a link to all my stories on Wagner) and the Bunch and trying to deflect the charge of dominionism from them is wrong. First, Wagner has come out now, now that their is significant media attention, to declare that he isn’t like those dominionists. The problem is, is that the internet has a long memory and Peter’s words are well recorded. He says that he doesn’t believe in a theocracy, but in other places, he promotes a theonomy. He loves the Seven Mountain Mandate which is built upon Christian Reconstructionist principles. He no longer believes in the Gospel by discipleship, but instead, believes in forced social transformation of entire social groups and maintains that that is what is meant by the Great Commission:
Formerly, I thought my task was to go to as many nations of the world as possible and save as many souls as possible and plant as many churches as possible. Now I take the Great Commission more literally when it tells us not to make as many individual disciples as we can but to disciple whole social groups—such as entire nations. This is kingdom theology.
From C. Peter Wagner‘s book:
“Acts 3:21 talks of Jesus being in heaven “until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” Restoration also means “transformation,” and this dates back to the beginning, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. Even though Jesus came and changed history. He is waiting for us to do our part in bringing restoration to pass in real life. Meanwhile, He is reigning through us until “He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (I Corinthians 15:24-25).
“It is our task to become spiritual and social activists until Satan’s dominion is ended” (ht)
And, and why seven?
The number 7 is a boiled-down version of the original 17 spheres that were delineated in “worldview” documents prepared by the Coalition on Revival in the 1980s, when COR served as a “melting pot for Charismatic Dominionists and Reconstructionists.” These worldview documents, described in detail in Al Dager’s book Vengeance Is Ours (Sword, 1990), contained theological and political positions that were “mandatory for all Christians to implement . . . in society.”
For more things associated with Wagner (say, like a theological test), see here, here, and here.
So, which Wagner are we supposed to be believe? The one who wants media control or the one who shrinks from media attention?
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
peter likes to defend heretics. he’s a big todd bentley defender too- even when bentley proved himself a deceiver.
You’ve GOT to be kidding.
Reconstructionists (who misuse the term dominionism) want to take over the world by force and cause people to live a lifestyle of Christian virtue.
Dominionists (such as myself and Wagner) want to take over the world by demonstrating the Gospel of the Kingdom and see people freely responding to God in righteousness, joy, peace, and love. (that IS what Jesus did… right?)
If you can’t see the difference, something is quite wrong here.
And it’s funny, Jim – you just sinned, and yet you expect to be justified and forgiven. Must be that you’ve got a special dispensation from God to do that.
What’s wrong is that you fail to understand the Gospel and identify yourself with a heresy.
And how did Jim just sin?
I fail to understand the gospel how, Joel? And by the way and for the record, I only vaguely know who Wagner is – I think I flipped through one of his books once.
I identify with (and live, and see the fruit of, and AM the fruit of) the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (see for example Matthew 10:7) with the resulting demonstration of His power through us (Matthew 10:8, Mark 16:15+, 1 Cor. 12-14, and the rest of the New Testament)… we get a choice: word or power (1 Cor 2:4-5, Mark 9:28)… that choice is borne out of whether we believe Jesus to be True or a liar regarding what He said about the Kingdom (Mark 1:15, Matthew 11:12, Luke 17:21) and what our identity really is (Matthew 16:16-19, Romans 8:14-21 (esp. 17)… the fruit of that choice is evident (Matthew 7:16 and following) and is demonstrated by our love (John 15) and our willingness to do as Jesus commanded (John 14:15). The result is that the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all nations (Matthew 24:14), the nations will be discipled (Matthew 28:18+), the glory of the Lord covers His people (Isaiah 60) and through His people that glory will cover the whole earth (Numbers 14:21, Habakkuk 2:14), utterly transforming all who are touched by it (Isaiah 61, the book of Acts), spreading in a fashion we’d call “viral” through those who are transformed (Mark 5:19, John 4:29, Acts). We have the keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19) and are co-heirs with Christ in ALL that He has (Romans 8:17) … and one of the promises to Jesus and to us in Him is the nations (Psalm 2:8)… and all of creation is groaning and crying out for God’s people to come into the revelation of who they are so that creation itself can be redeemed (Romans 8:19-23) …
Our mandate is to normalize the earth according to the standards of Heaven, bringing all the power and glory of heaven (where we dwell (Eph 2:6, Phil 3:20)) here to earth (Matthew 6:10)… discipling the nations is part of that. There’s plenty of prophetic scripture to back up that the nations will turn to God before the return of Christ (that’s not to say that all people will, just to be very clear and keep you from going off a “she’s a universalist” tangent)
Discipling nations starts with people getting saved, healed, delivered, set free – God lays it out there pretty nicely in Isaiah 58 and 61. In order to disciple someone, one must have their heart. In order to disciple nations, we must gain the heart of the nation. We do that by setting individuals free… who in turn set more individuals free… who in turn… until it becomes neighborhoods and people groups and states and then nations. When the raw power and radical freedom of God are openly displayed, people want THAT. When cancer is healed, people get out of wheelchairs, and the insane are suddenly clothed and in their right mind, revivals start – and this can lead to the reformation of cities, states, and nations.
I don’t really label myself or my relationship with God, but if one were to label me, “Dominionist” would probably come pretty close. The thing is, that has NOTHING to do with so-called reconstructionism. Reconstructionists want to legislate the Law of God and call that dominion. They can call it what they want to, but what it IS, is bondage. That IS the taliban – forcing and enforcing. It’s a very cheap counterfeit to the real thing, which is freedom: the nations and the people in them transformed by the overwhelming love and glory of God and walking in that light and glory.
Reconstructionist religion’s goal is to enslave the mind regardless of whether the heart agrees. Change outward behavior and everyone is “happy” – in a Stepford sort of sense, I guess. Dominion brings about the freedom of heart to truly and unreservedly follow Christ and be transformed forever in His glory.
And I haven’t even gotten into the new heavens and the new earth yet… but that’s enough for now.
So please, show me the alleged heresy of that, and how it fits in with the beliefs of, say, Gary North or Rushdoony. Because you could say that their beliefs are in error (and I’d agree). You could even say that my beliefs are in error (and you’d be disagreeing with Scripture). But you cannot possibly say that my beliefs and those of the Reconstructionists are one and the same.
Have fun…
Wait… but didn’t you self-identify with Wagner? You know, “dominionists like Wagner and myself”. But you don’t much about him? Umm….
Our ‘mandate’… to ‘normalize’? Dwell in heaven? You haven’t really read the Scriptures have you?
“prophetic” Wow…. you really have filled your head with garbage haven’t you?
Nope, I don’t know much about the man – but I do know that we share common doctrine on many points. I don’t self-identify with anyone but Jesus – and it’s His gospel that I preach.
Yes – our mandate is to normalize the earth and make it like heaven. That’s what Jesus said, that’s what Paul and Peter and Priscilla and John and the others preached and did – that is what I see in Scripture and it is what I preach and do.
So you don’t believe that the Scriptures prophesy about the future? That IS the context in which I used the word “prophetic” … and you say *I* haven’t read them?
I’m becoming well-convinced that you are of your father, Joel.
So, that’s what Jesus said, eh? Um, where? Where did Jesus command us to take over the earth?
No, the Scriptures do not prophesy about the future. Stop living in the 19th century and go back to the beginning with people understand the Text.
You can become convinced of whatever you like, but for someone who can’t read the Scriptures, I’d be careful before casting stones.
(and for the record, I DO find it hysterical that you can’t find a single scriptural refutation of a single one of my points….)
Um, why should I engage in proof-texting with a dilettante?
Prooftexting? I just gave you more scriptural support than most sermons get.
Show me from the Word of God that my position is in error. I dare you to
Quoting one verse is prooftexting and blasphemy to the Text.
Wow, this is getting hysterical. The Scriptures don’t prophesy the future? So alllllllll the Old Testament said nothing about the coming of Jesus? Or of (what most people see as ) the “end times”…?
This is getting a bit weird.
Jesus didn’t command us to “take over the earth.” That’s precisely my point, because neither Wagner or myself or anyone else who believes in dominion has said it, either. You are lying.
quoting one verse… where, please, did I quote just one verse?
Do I scare you, Joel?
Wait? A heretic scaring me? Oh that’s funny.
Home now and catching up on this discussion:
Joel, chalk is chalk, and cheese is cheese, and just because you say chalk and cheese are the same thing that doesn’t make it true. What Wagner and Kay Sharpe are saying is about as different from what North says as it could possibly be, within the very broad framework of claiming to be Christian, and whatever you might say about it cannot change that at all. I understand that there has been some confusion about the term “dominion”. But only unscholarly dilettantes refuse to correct their simple errors when presented with proof of them. And you dare to call Kay a dilettante!
Sorry, Peter, but defending Wagner is a very dilettantish thing to do!
For starters,
I have read Gary North,and his theology rests on the idea that Christians replace the Jews in the Old Testament. That is a heresy, for Romans say that those people outside of the Jews, are Gentiles, and we have been engrafted into their covenant with YHWH.
Secondly, there is no way Gary North can be a Christian and deny the Incarnation like he has. How so? For North, God has not reconciled humanity to God, for God remains separate, and far and away out of this world. Yet Scripture tells us the YHWH dwelled in the Tabernacle and Temple, and then made his Tabernacle in the body of Jesus Christ (that’s John 1). North’s god sounds more like the above transcendent deity of the Founders’ deism and Allah in Islam. (see Gary North’s commentary on Leviticus).
Thirdly, North calls the Christians who were abolitionists “humanists” as if he believes in god more than them. That is the epitome of self-righteousness, and if he has ever read any Christians who believed in abolitionism, he would retract his heresy. But it goes to show you that Reconstructionists are okay with slavery and racial segregation, and that’s fine.They should just come out and admit it. Why label abolitionists humanists if not to show yourself more Christian than they? Not all abolitionists were Christians, but many were, and there were more than I can count. Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, William Lloyd Garrisson. The funny part is that capitalism and the free market are absolutes for dominionists like gary North, and guess what? That is promoting an idol. To promote a “libertarian” society and theonomy as the Kingdom of God is to worship an idol. And this is exactly what dominionists are up to. I believe in the free market, but it is not absolute. It simply is not. But hey, for North, Gold is the image of God (Honest Money), Go figure. Go figure.
RODOFA – interesting comments. I have read some select quotes from North, but haven’t read him extensively. He’s not a dominionist. He and folks like me are about as opposite as, well, folks like Joel and me.
Um-kay, dear, just because you don’t like to be identified with Gary North, doesn’t mean that you aren’t.
Joel – you associating me and my beliefs with North is as absurd as saying that you and I are both lovers of Christ.
Actually, by associating yourself with Dominionists, you are associating yourself with North. Now, I can’t help it that you don’t love God in Christ, but you could at least be honest about a few things. Unless you are attempting to prove Augustine right?
“disciple whole social groups—such as entire nations. This is kingdom theology.”
See, this is exactly the problem with reading our views of the nation-state into scripture; its just not there.
You are completely wrong simply because this (the subordinate clause) is not only untrue but is a lie from the pit of hell. By accepting this Satanic deception without even questioning its truth, without making any attempt to discover what the Seven Mountain Mandate actually is, you are doing Satan’s work – as well as being an entirely unscholarly dilettante (as is Jim West here) by not bothering to check your facts before writing.
OK, you claim to quote “C. Peter Wagner‘s book”, but he has written no less than 512 books, at least that is the number of items Amazon lists with him named as an author. But do you really deny that Jesus wants us “to do our part in bringing restoration to pass in real life”? Surely that is the very basics of the Christian call, such that to deny it as a principle is to deny the Christian faith altogether. Of course what this means in practice is debatable, but what you seem to be scared of is the principle without even having read Wagner’s version of the practice.
Rod, it was Jesus who used the word “nations”, in Matthew 28:19, and you who are “reading our views of the nation-state into scripture” and into Wagner’s words. There is nothing about modern nation-states in the article by Wagner which Joel quotes from P.J. Miller. For that matter there is nothing about “Dominionism” in the Christian Reconstructionism sense.
First, Peter, the only thing out of the pit hell of Wagner’s theology, which is Domionism. Second, the book was noted either in what I have written, in one of the links I posted, and I believe, it is the first book to pop up when you search for him on Amazon. I have checked, which you assume I haven’t because I disagree with you. It is a disgusting doctrine, filled with demons.
I deny that we are to take over anything. Further, given the urinating-poor translation of that section of Matthew, basing a doctrine such as world manifest destiny is horrible. The fast is, is that this world will be handled by Christ. We are called to not ‘restore’ but participate in Reconciliation.
Not scared of anything but I am fearful that real Christians, such as yourself, actually buy into this demonic monstrosity.
Jesus didn’t mean ‘nation-state.’
So, Joel, you claim you took that quote from Wagner’s “Discover Your Spiritual Gifts”? That seems unlikely to me, and is a very strange choice of book to look in to find Wagner’s definitive teaching on “Dominionism”.
OK, so I have found your source, a blog post by P.J. Miller quoting <a href="“>a book by Wagner called “Dominion”. The link Miller gives to that book is broken, but it does seem to be a genuine work by Wagner. But I shouldn’t be having to do this research myself, you should have done it. If I were your professor …
Of course clearly the place to look for Wagner’s definitive teaching is the new article he has written on this subject, which you and I both linked to. If you really want to claim that Wagner is inconsistent, then you need to quote an exact book, edition and page – that is, if you want to be taken as a scholar and not a dilettante.
I too “deny that we are to take over anything”. So does Wagner, as I understand him. Do you have any evidence at all that he has ever called for Christians to take over anything? I agree that that would be a teaching from the pit of hell. But it is NOT Wagner’s teaching. Don’t you understand the difference between being an activist with influence and taking something over by force? Here again is a quote from Wagner’s new article to clarify this:
Also Wagner has no “doctrine such as world manifest destiny” to be based on anything. And I agree that “Jesus didn’t mean ‘nation-state’” in the modern sense – but I don’t think anyone is saying that he did. But how would you translate that verse? You may start to have an idea when you have completed “Greek I at Gordon-Conwell”, but I would recommend a few more semesters before you lecture the professional translators who have almost all used the word “nations”.
Yes, I agree that “We are called to not ‘restore’ but participate in Reconciliation.” But again I think Wagner would as well. I see no difference between his “do our part in bringing restoration to pass” and your “participate in Reconciliation”. We do our part, but only Jesus can complete the task, and we are all waiting for him to do that.
PS I will be travelling and away from the Internet for the next two days, so if I don’t reply for a bit please don’t take it personally.
Um… Peter, I didn’t claim that at all. Why are you making stuff up? Why is the heretic Wagner so important to you as to make things up?
If you were my professor, and I found out that you supported Wagner, I’d see to it that you were dropped from the Seminary or I was. Further, your condescending attitude is dismal and I am ashamed of you.
So, only the latest ‘word’ matters, not the years and years of history? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, really.
Ahhh, the key: “As I understand him.” So a convenient scape-goat and very much the avenue of a dilettante, Professor.
Being an activist is one thing – running for office, or having others do so, or taking over positions in the name of activism to indeed force.
Wow…. what an arrogant little Brit. First, one doesn’t exactly need a ‘few semesters’ of Greek to understand ‘nation.’ Of course, if you continue to rely upon Strongs’ and whatever else it is that you need to in order to defend the demon-based dominionism, go right ahead. I’d hate to be you to have to give an answer to God on that Day, however, of what you have done to defend such a satanic mess.
You are defend Wagner only on what you ‘think’, i.e., dilettante, and not on what he has said over the years. Why don’t you quite trying to rationalize Wagner and listen to what he actually says and does? Or, would that destroy your fundamentalism?
Safe journeys, Peter, and God bless.
Sounds like you’d be content to let the satanists run the world…
Of course, if you were a good example of what Christians should act like, I’d greatly prefer it.
No, actually, that’s why I am against the Dominionists like Wagner and the Bunch
Hmmm.
Wagner, myself, and the Bunch want to see the world transformed by and in the glory of God – hearts and lives changed and people everywhere authentically living for Christ.
You don’t want that.
Which is in service to satan?
Funny how you proclaim to know nothing about Wagner, but count him the same as you? Really?
No, Wagner wants to see transformation by imposition. I don’t know about you, but Wagner, and if you are claiming to be just like Wagner, wants world domination
I know enough about him to know we’re from the same family, Joel. Why is this such an issue? If you’d rather, I’ll declare us to be best friends though. Siblings, even. Happy?
Prove what you say – or quit saying it.
So, you don’t know anything about the man but you claiming kinshop?
I have proven it, time and time again. I leave the links for you to decide to click through.
Joel – I’ve looked at your articles. They’re laughable at best.
Don’t challenge Wagner’s theology. Challenge mine. Go ahead. I posted Scripture. Now you try to do it.
I have read enough Wagner to know that this is not true. Indeed it is a deliberate lie being repeated by people who are trying to discredit a major Christian leader.
When you sign on to statements using military language, such as occupy, then yes, it is by imposition. Further, when you seek to place in high levels of power, well, again, imposition.
I wouldn’t call him a ‘major Christian leader.’
I’m not sure where Wagner is using military rather than political language, unless you object to him using biblical metaphors. Would you argue that any politician (left or right) who seeks a “place in high levels of power” is in fact seeking to impose his or her dominion over a country by force? Don’t you understand how people can seek to persuade others to agree with them, and how that is something completely different from imposing their views by force?
As for Wagner being a major figure or not, you seem to think him major enough to campaign against, but then change your tune when it suits you.
Actually, yeah, I would argue that. I would say that politicians are elected to impose their will (or the will of the people in their lingo) over the rest of the populace. Look at the Dominionist Party, er Tea Party in the Colonies.
Christians aren’t called to impose their will.
I think that evil is worth campaigning against.
@Peter – Come on now. I was rather enjoying my new status as “dilettante” – quit ruining it for me!
@Joel – If “occupy” implies “by force” then to you, Jesus isn’t a “Christian leader” either. #fail
Kay, instead of rambling, trying using coherent thoughts. #FAIL
Dominionists want to rule the world by force, and thats fine.
They just need to leave the Christian religion, because obviously they think they can shape the world through their own will rather than be faithful to the gospel and allow the Holy Spirit to change lives.
That’s exactly what Christian violence boils down to: trusting in ourselves rather than God’s own power.
RODOFA – Reconstructionists want to rule the world by force.
This is not that.
Why are you so afraid?
So do Dominionists.
Joel –
>>So do Dominionists.<<
Only in the fearful recesses of your mind.
Only in reality, um,Kay
Another deliberate lie. Well, there are some people who have been called “Dominionists”, those who are better known as “Christian Reconstructionists”, who do want this of something similar. But many others who have been called “Dominionists”, including Wagner, do not want this or anything of the kind. Wagner has made this very clear in his recent urgent message. So please stop repeating these lies.
Why don’t you start telling the truth, as Rodney and I are?
http://www.narwatch.com/
Thanks for the link which led me straight to proof that Wagner is a major figure, in a headline “The Biggest Religious Movement You Never Heard of”. But why are recommending anti-Christian sites like this one?
Facts shouldn’t be biased, Peter.
Further, I would contend that a movement which simply claims to be Christian doesn’t make it so.
That’s funny, you know, because my Bible tells me that Satan has been defeated by Christ already, so there is no need to fear the reign of anyone outside of Christ. Since, you know, Jesus has already won us the victory. Revelation 12, Colossians 2.
dominionists cant really take the Resurrection seriously.
You’re on the right track, RODOFA – you’re just reaching the wrong conclusion.
So why does Joel fear the reign of Peter Wagner?
Wagner has been an embarrassment for decades. But somehow or other, he’s the Great Survivor.
@Kay Sharpe.
Read Gary North. He is a dominionist. In fact, he wrote an entire book dedicated to it, criticizing evangelical preacher Tim Keller entitled, Theonomy: An Informed Response.
So yes, he is a dominionist.
RODOFA, he can “call” himself a dominionist – but he’s not what I call a dominionist, nor what Wagner is talking about.
Two totally different things. I find what I know of North’s theology (or theonomy, however you prefer it) to be odious and contrary to Scripture in about every way.
OOOoooooooh,
So it doesn’t matter if Gary North identifies as a dominionist, or argues for dominionism.
All that matters is what you in your opinion believe.
I get it, I get it.
And yes, Gary North’s and Rushoondy’s (North’s father-in-law) theologies are horrendous. That we can agree.
Not really, no, it doesn’t matter. If you called yourself a coffee mug, would it make you one? Come on, seriously.
I didn’t know that Rushdoony was North’s FIL though. Like I said, I’ve read a few select quotes along the way and it’s enough to know that ewwww, no, that’s just NOT. I think I read the quotes in Randy Clark’s healing school material (he refutes North and Rushdoony).
Now – can we agree that regardless of terminology, what N&R believe, and what I believe, are two different (even diametrically opposed) things?
Basically, you know nothing about Dominionism, or the major players.Yet, you claim identification with them because of a few similar points of interest. You should be careful whom you identify with, um, Kay.
Actually, that is exactly what Wagner – whom you profess to know little to nothing about – is talking about. And yet, you seem to think you can speak for him… Odd. I’m not going to say that either you are lying about not knowing anything about Wagner or are arrogant enough to think you can speak for someone else….
Joel, i guess I’ll have to read his books so thta you’ll be happy.. I think there’s a couple over at the church, if they’re still in the library I’ll grab them later on
i would prefer if you would read the text, as you don’t seem to have a critical enough mind to discern what is good and what is hellish
Kay, I greatly appreciate your contributions to this thread. But I think it would be better not to call yourself, or Wagner, “dominionist”. That’s because the term has been hijacked, not so much by Rushdoony and North as by the secularist press (and their friends like Joel) trying to discredit people.
ahahhahahahahah talk about attempting to discredit, Peter…. Really? I’m a friend of the secularist press? How very dominionist of you
Peter, respectfully, I disagree – that’s rather like saying that we shouldn’t call ourselves Christians any more because the Mormons and the JW’s call themselves that, and the press follows suit.
I don’t often apply a label to myself, but if you were to apply one that describes my stance on this subject, “dominionist” would probably have to be it.
Fair enough, Kay. Perhaps I should rejoice in the shame of being called “Dominionist” much as Joel is prepared to call himself Methodist, originally a rather similar term of abuse for people who dared to put their Christian faith into practice, for more than one hour each Sunday, by seeking to change the world.
@Kay,
I fear no one.
Reconstructionism, like Joel said, is collectivism. “Nations disciplining nations”? How is that possible with violence and hegemony (forced conformity to one nation’s standards over another)?
Again, I believe in the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God comes through Jesus Christ, and not “THE CHURCH” or “THE ELECT.” God is positively more free than that, since you know, He is sovereign, and not us.
I will tell you what though, Kay, I will stop “being afraid” when you start BEING INFORMED about the very people that you admire. Obviously, you have not done your homework on Gary North, or considered any other possibility by Christians running an empire through “theonomy.”
God placed His sovereignty pretty squarely in the hands of the Church, RODOFA – and Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within US.
Again, I don’t know about North and his people – but what Wagner preaches is love. When love and honor (the core principles of the Kingdom of God) are what is advanced, then control becomes absolutely unnecessary.)
“God placed His sovereignty pretty squarely in the hands of the Church”
Hearsay.
Heresy.
And no biblical backing whatsoever.
It is Jesus himself who hands the Father back the keys to the kingdom, and not the Church.
Wagner preaching love? But what is love? Is love dominating others? 1st John 4 tells us God shows us love in sending his Son to die for us. Love that takes away control of creation from God is blasphemous. You all are standing in for god. We can’t take God’s place. God is the all-mighty, God is creator, we are the creature. Can the pots do the job of the potter? As Christians we need to know our roles, and being the potter is not one of them!
“Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within US.”
Actually, the greek can mean that the kingdom of God is within us or among us, and so it can mean that, but if you think about it, if God is King of creation, and Jesus is king in the line of DAvid, it is Jesus talking about himself, for he is the Kingdom of God, and what God’s rule looks like.
Lastly, even tyrannical dictators call themselves “servant leaders.” Abusive husbands claim to be working in the name of “love” and “honor,” yes? So it matter not how innocent your “principles” are, but what they look like in action, and in action, dominionism looks like the kingdom of hell, like the Tower of Babel, just a group of dedicated people trying to establish their own empire.
Actually, no.
Christ said that He along has ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. Matthew, chapter 28. Tell me, where does your falsehood come from?
Yes, He did say that Joel – just before He returned it to mankind. And even if He hadn’t, in that same statement, said it, Scripture is clear that we are heirs of everything that Jesus has. He has authority? We are co-heirs of it.
I find it amusing how you spew and hiss when I quote scripture.
So, you have nothing, no Scripture, to offer? Poor thing….
This is a complete red herring. Wagner has nothing to do with and nothing in common with, “Reconstructionism” or “violence and hegemony (forced conformity to one nation’s standards over another)”. Why should Kay do her homework on someone like North whose teaching is clearly totally different from hers, which I think she considers completely repugnant and heretical?
nearly about everything, actually.
Kay doesn’t even know anything about Wagner, so yeah, she should do her homework. So should you.
You are the one who needs to do your homework, by reading Wagner’s own books (start with his urgent message) rather than propaganda from militant secularists.
Oh my….
I’ve posted nothing but Scripture all day, Joel – and you’ve come back with nothing but hiss and vinegar. dig into the Word. Refute what I have to say.
“I’ve posted nothing but Scripture all day”
Even ones that you make up.
That’s hysterical RODOFA – really.
Now we have an issue worth discussing. Yes, I can see an argument that Christians should keep out of the political arena completely, and perhaps only pray for governments – but not that they make good laws, because that would be using the government to impose their will on the people. On that argument Christians shouldn’t vote, shouldn’t express their opinions publicly, shouldn’t do anything that might encourage governments to make any kind of good law. Best if they disappear into the mountains to live their own self-sufficient lives.
On the other hand, if you really “think that evil is worth campaigning against”, you need to gain influence in society, in the seven mountains including the political one, for your campaign to have any effectiveness. And that is the biblical picture, which I could justify but not in this comment box.
Not saying that either, Peter, but thanks, again, for trying to put words in my mouth
Joel, I didn’t put the words “I think that evil is worth campaigning against” into your mouth, you wrote them. Or did you mean “It’s OK for me to campaign against Wagner because he is evil, but not OK for Wagner to encourage Christians to campaign against other evils”?
It’s not okay for Christians to seek to impose upon the world systems their forms of government and ideals. Answering heresies is the Christian duty. I have no issue with Christians speaking about in loyal opposition to the evils of the world institutions; however, to seek to convert them by force or to infiltrate them and then use them to convert others is what I am against.
So, Joel, you would leave politics and government to atheists and/or Muslims? You would not vote for any candidate who was any kind of Christian? Or maybe you wouldn’t vote at all?
Or is it OK for a Christian to be in politics as long as they are in the minority in opposition? That position doesn’t make sense.
I would join you in objecting to any attempt “to convert them by force or to infiltrate them”. As I have already tried to convince you, Wagner is completely opposed to conversion by force. I’m almost sure he would also oppose any kind of covert infiltration. Everything should be done publicly and honestly. And that is how people’s minds should be changed – by winning the arguments. That surely is what Wagner and friends are aiming to do.
I believe that there is a difference between a Christian running for office – I’m not sure I would advocate for that – an one who has built up a network which has as a goal taking over ‘mountains’ or whatever nonsensical concept is developed.
The Church is to be the loyal opposition, serving to buffet the weak against the plays of the Government, but the government of this world is not ours and nor is it a Christian command.
The idea that Jesus would have cared about the policy of the US government is completely bizarre. Jesus, Paul and their followers thought the world was going to end in the lifetime of their listeners. They thought that the governments of the world were going to be supernaturally overturned by god, who would impose a reign of peace and righteousness governed my Israel.
As it turned out out, they were wrong, which forced other people to write things like, “a day with the Lord is like 1000 years.”
That said, governing with the purpose of imposing religious doctrine on the masses in the form of laws is anti-American, it goes against the constitution that patriots claim to love.
And further, there is nothing scarier for the future of the world than the most powerful country to be ruled by people who rule based on principals established in the ancient world, when slavery was OK, women were bartered, debt was cause to be imprisoned or sold and governments had the power to execute at the whims of the ruler. Yeah, let’s bring back the good old days.
Well, Joel, first we need to distinguish between an individual Christian having political influence and the church having it. I am by no means advocating the latter – the church as an institution must be separate from the state. And Wagner, in the paragraph on theocracy in his update, clearly says the same. But it is a different matter for individual Christians to get involved in politics.
So you ARE saying that you would leave the government, even of a country whose population is majority Christian, to atheists, Muslims etc. That seems a crazy position, playing right into the hands of evil.
Now I know this is a difficult one to argue from the New Testament. And I certainly don’t want to follow the Reconstructionist error of using the Old Testament model of theocratic Israel as a model for the church today. But in the Old Testament we have at least three good models of godly men serving in high positions in the political arena in non-Israelite and generally ungodly governments: Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, and Nehemiah as a governor under the king of Persia. We also have the godly advice given to King Lemuel in Proverbs 31, and the way God used King Cyrus. All of these show that it is right for godly people to serve in the political arena to bring about God’s purposes, and wrong for them to abdicate their responsibilities in this area.
I was interested to find this in another Christian Post article on the subject:
Joel, do you think that is fair comment? Do you object to Christians on the left like Wallis and Campolo getting involved in politics? Or do you object only when you perceive them (not always accurately) as being right-wing extremists? I note that only last month you were happily involved in a discussion of Wallis’ view on foreign policy, and made no attempt to suggest that Christians should not express such views.
As I have said before, I am not in favor of Christians being involved in politics, but I am not completely opposed to it. I am opposed to a purposed take over in which people seek spheres of influence and power so as to impose upon others their viewpoints, Christian or not.
Wallis is seeking to correct things by remaining in the Church and urging political leaders, from outside their sphere, to abide by biblical precepts.