PROLOGUE

Three abuses of knowledge into which Christians can fall are error, schism and heresy. All believers will fall into error, often without necessarily affecting others, and they will relish it if and when some kind soul gently corrects them. A schism is the sinful factionalising of a group behind an individual or a personalised interpretation of truth. To avoid falling into this pitfall is of supreme importance. A heresy is a sectarian belief-system which can contain truth in varying degrees (so as to attract the unwary), but which carries people away into that which runs counter to truth. Some heresies are particularly destructive (2 Peter 2:1).

‘Dominion Theology’ (or ‘Christian Reconstructionism’) has as its goal the peaceful conversion of governments to a ‘theocracy’, which bases its civil law on the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament. However, it is my belief that this is not only an error, but that it is schismatic and heretical too. For Dominion Theology leads people to exalt the Mosaic Law and to undermine the New Covenant gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ, while working to bring about a fictitious “millennium”, based on a ‘Christianised’ world, which misleads believers concerning the status and experience of the church during this present evil age. In this study, I aim to show that Dominion Theology inevitably makes believers less like Christ, that it exalts the power of the civil state above its God-given status, and that it paints a false picture of both church history and the time of the end.

The Tension of Being a Suffering Church in a Godless World

In many ways, it is only to be expected that a number of the Lord’s people will feel attracted to a theology which advocates the exercising of Christian dominion over the civil powers and the restructuring of society along Christian lines. They rightly feel disturbed by the corrupted world they observe around them, and they would seek to influence the civil authorities to adopt laws which are compatible with biblical morality and the demands of purity which are expected within the body of Christ. Yet, it is here that the greatest tension occurs. Many believers — in order to cope with this dilemma — take a nostalgic, rose-coloured look at what they imagine to be former times of ‘blessing and revival’; or they eagerly anticipate a similarly imaginary golden age of global grace ahead. However, such romanticised nostalgia and millennial longings are more a response of believers who are unable to handle adequately the inevitable tension of being part of a suffering church in a predominantly godless world rather than a serious exegesis of Holy Scripture.

Those who adhere to Christian Reconstructionism or Dominion Theology have devised their own technique for coping with being God’s people living in a godless world. Rather than recognise how apostasy and doctrines of demons will increasingly flourish in the run-up to the end of this age (as the Scriptures plainly show), they believe that humanism and occultism have developed at such a pace during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries solely because of a failure on the part of Christians to take or maintain “dominion” over societal and cultural institutions. They believe that the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) was a mandate for believers to “Christianise” aggressively every national civic institution in the world. They therefore seek to implement, on an international basis, the judicial laws of Old Testament Israel. This would include such devices as capital punishment for idolatry, homosexuality and adultery, with the aim of establishing a “millennial” golden age on earth in which the people of the world (even unbelievers, who may form a majority) will conform to the letter of these Old Covenant laws.

The Root of All Error and Heresy

I believe that the implementation of this theory would not only represent a serious regression in the process of redemptive history, but that it also illustrates a complete failure to understand the meaning and implications of the advent of Christ and the New Covenant which He has established. It is well worth noting here that all error and heresy come to pass either through a distorted view of God and His workings in history, or because of a misconception of the “not-yetness” of the kingdom of God. The kingdom has certainly come in grace but it has not yet come in the fullness of glory. That fullness awaits the return of Christ. It is this that the Dominionists and Reconstructionists do not seem to understand — neither do they want to understand it.

To go some way towards an understanding of the issues involved, I will now pose a few questions: What should be the attitude of believers to the godless world? What should be their attitude to their own brethren when they fall into sin? How far, and in what ways, should the Lord’s people seek to influence the civil state? What is the biblical relationship between the Church and the civil authorities? What biblical guidelines should the Christian invoke when he or she looks back at church history, or forwards to the time of the end? To find some answers to these questions, I am going to propose three primary theses. Hopefully, my exposition of these theses will reveal the historical regression and biblical misreading which lies at the heart of Dominion Theology.

Thesis #1: “Dominion Theology deters believers from developing a Christlike spirit”

The descriptive terms “Dominion Theology” or “Christian Reconstructionism” are here being used in preference to “Theonomy” (another name sometimes given to this movement). The use of the term Theonomy (the Law of God) by one particular (warped) faction of the faith represents the hijacking of a biblical word which really applies to ALL Christians. All Christians are judged according to God’s Law. All Christians are to live according to God’s Law. However, in just the same way that God’s redemptive plan has been progressively revealed in different ways at different times (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2), so God’s Law has similarly been manifested among us. It is most important for us to understand this fact which undergirds the process of history, and it has been well summed up by Steele and Thomas in their excellent study manual on Romans:

“Although all of God’s people…have been freed from the law in relation to salvation, they have never been free from God’s law as a rule of duty. The saints of all ages have been under law to God, but they have not all served under the same revelation of the law. From Adam to Moses the rule of duty for the saints living during this time seems to have been primarily the law of conscience (written on man’s heart). Some additional laws are recorded in the biblical record, but little is revealed concerning them. From Moses to Christ the rule of duty for God’s people living during this period was the Law of Moses, with its many detailed regulations, which was abolished by Christ at His death. From Christ to the end of the age the rule of duty for believers today is contained in the New Covenant. Though the laws of the Old Covenant are profitable for study, they are no longer binding on God’s people. However, many of the moral principles contained in the law of Moses (the Old Covenant) have also been included in the New Covenant Law (e.g. the laws forbidding murder, adultery, etc.), and thus the two codes of law, though different have much in common”.

David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas, Romans: An Interpretive Outline, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963, p.55

The fact that believers are covenantally under the ”Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21) rather than the Law of Moses is a concept most vital for the right development of our Christian lives. Whereas the Law of Moses consisted of the Ten Commandments plus the ceremonial and civil laws contained in the Pentateuch, the Law of Christ “contains a clearer revelation of God’s law and a higher standard of conduct for His people than the law of Moses” [David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas, Romans: An Interpretive Outline, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963, p.54]. What a sobering fact this is: one which should stop Reconstructionists in their tracks.

In-Lawed to Christ Rather Than Under the Law of Moses

Those born under the law of Moses were controlled, like children or servants, by mere external regulations; but believers in the New Covenant are constrained by their relationship of love with their Redeemer Christ, (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14) and the leading of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:18). The great change under the New Covenant, in respect of the believer’s relationship to the Law of God, is that our Lord no longer treats us as children and servants but as heirs and friends (Galatians 3:23 – 4:7; John 15:15). We are, as Paul puts it, “in-lawed to Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21) — a vivid witness to the intimacy of our relationship with Him (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34). The progressive sanctification of the believer, therefore, involves an ongoing adult interaction with the Spirit of Christ, through which s/he works out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, but in loving obedience to the One by whom s/he has been redeemed (Philippians 2:12;13).

The believer is actually a ‘work-in-progress’ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than under the compulsion of the Mosaic law. If you are LED by the Spirit you are NOT under the (Mosaic) law (Galatians 5:18; 2 Corinthians 3:2-8; Romans 8:2) — for justification OR for sanctification (Romans 6:14). It is not only Reconstructionists and Dominionists who fail to understand this covenantal fact: many other believers have not properly grasped the full implications of what Paul is saying about law and grace.

The Law of Christ — to which Christians are covenantally bound — consists of “the whole tradition of Jesus’ ethical teaching, confirmed by His character and conduct, and reproduced within His people by the power of the Spirit” [F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Paternoster, 1982), p.261]. Although Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law in His life (John 14:30) and death (Galatians 3:13), He did not destroy it (Matthew 5:17). Part of that fulfillment (and herein lies the continuity of the Covenants) meant that all which was essential and permanently useful in the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant was subsumed into the more glorious Law of Christ under the New Covenant (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:2-18). Our gracious God works through progressive revelation: first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. It has been this way with the revelation of His Law also. But Reconstructionists/Dominionists want us to live by the letter of the Law of Moses (the revelation of God’s Law under the Old Covenant), instead of the Law of the Spirit of Christ (the revelation of God’s Law under the New Covenant), which is so much better (Hebrews 8:6-13).

So I have no objection to the idea of Christians being Theonomists (delighters in God’s Law, Romans 7:22), provided they exalt Christ rather than Moses; but I do object to “Dominion Theology” and “Christian Reconstructionism”, because they serve to make a Christian — in his responses to his brethren and the world around him — more like Moses rather than Christ. This is why I say that Reconstructionism has a regressive spirit. For it drags believers back in God’s redemptive history to the spiritual conditions of B.C. rather than A.D., in terms of their relationship with Christ, with the godless world and with one another. This, in spite of the fact that Scripture is clear that all of Israel’s laws were given specifically to Israel and to no other nation (Deuteronomy 4:7-8), and for a limited period of time (Galatians 3:17-25).

The sensitive reader of Scripture will recall that occasion when two of the disciples asked the Lord Jesus if He would have them call down fire on the Samaritans who would not receive Him (Luke 9:51-54). But He told them plainly that they were exhibiting a complete failure to comprehend their new spiritual status, and that they had no grasp of the purpose of the Gospel in this present age (please read Luke 9:55-56). In other words, like the Dominionists and Reconstructionists of today, they were still operating under the economy of the Old Order. This illustrates the problems inherent in a system which goes primarily to the Old Testament for its legislation, ethics and discipline.

Dominionists/Reconstructionists Ignore New Covenant Admonitions

Consider this: When the New Covenant person sees an unbeliever worshipping an idol on the Lord’s Day, does his stomach well up with a great desire to have him stoned to death under the Mosaic Law, as seems to be the case with Reconstructionists? Or does he feel compassion in his heart and a burning need to reach out with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing that he was once himself alienated and an enemy in his mind by wicked works, yet is now reconciled by Christ (Mark 6:34; Colossians 1:21; Eph.2:1-3)? Surely, the churches of the New Covenant in Christ are not to exercise judgement on unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:12-13), and should leave it to the Lord to take the appropriate action (Romans 12:17-19). Similarly, if the Christian sees a brother in Christ fallen by the wayside into some sin, does this New Covenant person think immediately of dragging him before the magistrate, or hauling him before the elders to be severely disciplined by his church? Or does he hear the words of the apostle ringing in his ears: ”Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1; cf. James 5:19-20). Such New Covenant admonitions appear to have gone completely over the heads of Reconstructionists.

Within the churches themselves there is a laid down New Testament progressive process of discipline (admonition – ostracism – restoration, e.g. Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 1 Timothy 1:20) which is very different from that meted out under the Old Covenant (punishment – death, e.g. Deuteronomy 17:2-13). The point of contention here is that discipline in the New Testament churches is not so much about punishment as about loving restoration (Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 2:6-11; James 5:19-20). As this primarily restorative element of discipline is not appreciated even in some Reformed churches today, it is hardly surprising that such a New Covenant dimension is entirely absent from the Reconstructionist’s approach to the Body of Christ towards the culture in which he resides, and the life-purpose of the Christian who (with not a little tension) lives strangely astride these two domains (the Ekklesia and the world).

The Fulfilment of the Law of Christ

The New Covenant person is to be conformed to the Lord Jesus Christ and to become like Him in every way possible (2 Corinthians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 2:16b; 11:1; Ephesians 5:1). For He has loved us, taken the form of a servant through His incarnation, humbled Himself for us, forgiven us, reconciled us, comforted us, borne our burdens, and ultimately laid down His life for us. Because of this, we are to do these same things for one another — thus fulfilling the Law of Christ (John 13:34; Philippians 2:3-9; Colossians 3:13; Ephesians 4:32; 1 Thessalonians 5:9-11; Galatians 6:2; 1 John 3:16; etc.). This is what Covenant relationship is all about, and it provides the foundational ethic of the Christian life. By encouraging believers to adopt an Old Covenant approach to church discipline, sanctification, and the unbelieving world, Reconstructionists are taking a step backwards in the revelation of the law and grace of God in redemptive history. Thus, Reconstructionists lead believers into a spiritual and historical regression, encouraging them to become more like Moses than Christ — which thereby involves them in a far less glorious Covenantal relationship (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). Dominion Theology is very much a case of “Backward, Christian Soldiers” rather than the progressive thought behind the hymn title, “Onward, Christian Soldiers”.

Thesis #2: “Dominion Theology is the Logical Outworking of Reformed Westminster Confession Theology”

This thesis may come as a surprise to many readers. If, like me, you have delighted in the writings of the Reformers and the Puritans, which have been so profusely reprinted in recent years, you may not realise that they actually held much in common with the Dominionists and Reconstructionists of today. Christian publishers have generally been tendentiously careful to ensure that the political writings of these 16th and 17th century pietistic giants have remained out of circulation. For the Puritans generally believed that although the judicial laws given to Israel had, in the main, been abrogated by Christ, those which were punishable by death and which were connected with the Moral Law of God are still in force (e.g. idolatry, sodomy, witchcraft, blasphemy, etc). A number of Puritan writers even asserted that Atheists should be executed for their beliefs. Such a style of thinking came to pervade the Westminster Confession, so that in Chapter XXIII, §3, the authority to enforce order within the church was entrusted to the civil powers:

“The civil magistrate…hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented and reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transmitted in them be according to the mind of God”.

The application of this concept in the 16th and 17th centuries led to the persecution and liquidation of many with whom the Protestant churches disagreed. But is it really the role of the state to “suppress all blasphemies and heresies” and to interfere in church life so extensively? Let us briefly examine the inception and purpose of the state in the light of what Scripture has revealed.

In the absence of any properly institutionalised civil order, the degeneration of the post-Fall, pre-diluvian world was rapid. It began with a murder (Genesis 4:8) and culminated in a world which was “corrupt” and “filled with violence” — in which “the intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, 11-13). The civil state as a God-ordained institution was then established, in its basic principle, after the Flood in the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:5-6). It is clear from this and other references that it was ordained primarily to administer justice (including the death penalty for murder) and to promote general welfare — all to prevent a world in rebellion from drifting into chaos (Romans 13:1-7). This was ordained “for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-15), “to execute wrath on him who practises evil” (Romans 13:4), and “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Timothy 2:2). This is part of what the reformers referred to as the “generalem Dei gratiam” (general grace of God), through which the post-diluvian world is preserved from chaos in order that God’s eternal plan of redemption can be effected. The fact that the unbelieving world has often moulded the state into many additional functions which God did not indicate (e.g. state ownership of the means of production, persecution of dissidents, overburdensome taxes, etc.) does not detract from the propriety of that original function of preserving order and promoting welfare in a fallen world.

The Limits of State-Control in the Churches

Contrary to what both Roman Catholics and Reformers have mistakenly taught, there is not the slightest hint in the New Testament that the function of the state includes the enforcement of Christianity on society, or the supervision of discipline within the churches themselves. Admittedly, the “sacral” form of society — in which religion and state were intertwined — prevailed throughout the world before the advent of Christ (including in the Old Covenant nation of Israel), but the Lord Jesus taught that there is now a fundamental separation between the eternal, spiritual kingdom He is building (which is drawn from all nations) and the temporary, carnal kingdoms of the world (Matthew 22:17-21).

Reconstructionists (along with many of the reformers and the Westminster Confession) would here quote Isaiah 49:23 as “proof” that God has ordained the state to exercise authority in the church and suppress all blasphemies and heresies. But this verse is primarily a prophetic reference to the fact that Cyrus II of Persia (559-530 B.C.), would be helpful to the Jews by enabling them to return to rebuild Jerusalem (cf. Isaiah 49:22).

There is no doubt that civil rulers have often been helpful to the Lord’s people throughout the span of history, in various ways. Considering that the purpose of the state is ultimately to ensure the free passage of the process of redemption in the world by impeding chaos, this is not surprising. But such spasmodic, providential help has nothing to do with any God-given rights on the part of the state to exercise authority in matters of intrachurch discipline or dealing with false teachings. The New Testament Scriptures give no support whatsoever to the notion that the state should suppress blasphemers and heretics within or outside the Church (unless they actually pose a threat to common public order). But it was just such a notion which influenced Westminster doctrine on church-state relationships.

The Gospel Does Not Include a Mandate for Mass Execution!

It is quite proper for believers to seek to influence the state to fulfil its original God-given functions (upholding civil order – promoting general welfare). But although legislation against the contraceptive use of abortion (infanticide), or any other chaos-inducing crime (e.g. murder, theft, violence, etc.), does come within that original function, legislating against idolatry or homosexual proclivities (provided civil order or welfare is not being violated) does not fall within the jurisdiction of the state — regardless of how much we may find such activities offensive. What Reconstructionists do not appear to understand is that one of the principal differences between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church is that the latter has a gospel of love to proclaim to the unbelieving nations, rather than a mandate for mass execution! In fact, if one were to implement all the capital offences of the Mosaic Law (sodomy, incest, sorcery, idolatry, blasphemy, false teaching, filial disobedience), both courts and graveyards would be full to overflowing. Actually, there would be no one left in the world to evangelize!

So it is a fact that Dominion Theology can legitimately claim a precedent in the ideology of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was based on a distinctly Old Covenant approach in some of its propositions (notably in the areas of sanctification and church/state relations). As Dr. Meredith Kline puts it in a fine review article on Greg Bahnsen’s “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”:

“[Reconstructionism] is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. It is, in fact, a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith… Ecclesiastical courts operating under the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems… if they should be of a mind to bring the [Reconstructionist] aberration under their judicial scrutiny”.

Westminster Theological Journal, Vol.41, Fall, 1978, No.1, pp.172-189

Because of this unfortunate anomaly, Reconstructionists and strict Westminster adherents are brought under a regressive spirit which is both B.C. and 17th century in its outlook. Once again, I can only say: “Backward, Christian soldiers”!

Thesis #3: “Dominion Theology is Rooted in Historical and Eschatological Romanticism”

The Christian should never indulge in a vain imagination. Romance is for those who thrive on illusions. The Christian should actively seek to be dis-illusioned. This applies both to his conception of the past (which is history) as well as his contemplation of the times of the end (which is eschatology). Yet, Dominion Theology is rooted in a highly romantic view of both the past and the future. I refer here to their view of that historical period known as the “Reformation”, and a projected (imaginary) future state of global peace on earth in its present state, commonly known as the “Millennium”.

Historical Romanticism

The primary historical model for the romanticised theocratic state of the Reconstructionists is the city of Geneva, as set up by John Calvin in the sixteenth century. Here all the intolerance of Reforming Protestantism was given its head as Christianity was enforced, by an ecclesiastical policing system, on to the entire populace — whether or not they were regenerated people. The entire population was forced to attend church and listen to the sermons or be seriously penalised. There would be major sentences given for adultery and homosexuality, even a death sentence. Regardless of all Calvin’s great attributes as a theologian, his political work in Geneva was not so rosy as many historians would have us believe. In conformity with our exposure of the regressive nature of Reconstructionist theology, Philip Schaff writes: “The moral discipline which Calvin introduced [in Geneva] savours more of the spirit of the Old Testament than the Spirit of the New” [P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, Scribner’s, 1910, p.263].

John Calvin himself appears to have given conflicting views on the use of the Mosaic Law in relation to civil government. In his Institutes, he was certainly not a Reconstructionist, for he says that those who claim that a commonwealth is improperly framed if it neglects the political system of Moses have fallen into a “perilous and seditious notion” (Institutes, IV.XX.14). He rightly pointed out that the Mosaic judicial laws had been abrogated, and that “every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself…yet in conformity to that perpetual rule of love” (Institutes, IV.XX.15). So far, so good. However, in his sermons on Deuteronomy 13 and 1 Timothy 2:2, he was unashamedly in favour of empowering the state to execute false teachers and other transgressors of capital offences under the Mosaic judicial law. Moreover, despite Calvin’s correct assertion that “it is a Jewish vanity to seek to enclose Christ’s kingdom within the elements of this world”, (Institutes, IV.XX.1), his practice of this tenet did not apply itself in relation to the city of Geneva. With regard to the fact that Calvin’s Confession was made law in both church and state in Geneva, Philip Schaff observes:

“It was a glaring inconsistency that those who had just shaken off the yoke of popery as an intolerable burden, should subject their conscience and intellect to a human creed; in other words, substitute for the old Roman popery a modern Protestant popery… The same inconsistency and intolerance was repeated a hundred years later on a much larger scale in the “Solemn League and Covenant” of the Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans against popery and prelacy, and sanctioned in 1643 by the Westminster Assembly of Divines”.

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, Scribner’s, 1910, p.357

Unfortunately, the less objective histories of this period can often represent the Christian equivalent of Mills and Boon romance novels (e.g. James A. Wylie’s 1878 “History of Protestantism”). If you prefer your history to be “straight-from-the-shoulder” rather than “Roy-of-the-Rovers” then you should avoid such comic-strip capers. The Reformation was not the rosy romance which many history books make it out to be. Very many men and women lost their lives at the hands of the persecuting zeal of the Reformers with their sacralist ecclesiology. The Lord’s people have a duty to report issues fairly and objectively — for two reasons. Firstly, failure to do so is discordant with the Word (Exodus 20:16; Matthew 15:19; Romans 13:9). This was especially notable in respect of the perjurious press which the so-called Anabaptists have unjustly received. Secondly, one of the great hallmarks of the historical narratives of the Old Testament — one worthy of imitation — is that they faithfully record the activities of the Lord’s people without concealing any warts or blemishes.

I have to confess to some guilt in this area myself. In 1988, I wrote a series of articles on “Calvin’s Geneva” for a well-known Christian magazine which did not really do justice to the darker side of the Reformation. Like an obedient ‘reformed’ student (I was in theological college at the time), I even tried to explain away the unnecessary liquidation of the heretic Servetus on the basis that those who executed him were merely victims of their environment, acting under the influence of the spirit of their age. Such an excuse should never be made for the Christian, who is to be transformed with the renewing of his mind, rather than conformed to the patterns of this world (Romans 12:2). He or she is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) who must take responsibility for his sin (Romans 6:14a; Philippians 2:12-13), and who cannot blame his environment for his every peccadillo.

I do not now exalt what was enacted in Geneva as a praiseworthy theocratic enterprise. Although there were many laudable facets about the changes that were wrought in Geneva, the experiment itself was ultimately a failure — as will be every single attempt to establish an earthbound manifestation of the kingdom of God. For we have Christ’s assertions that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and that it does not come by outward observation (Luke 17:20). On every occasion that the church has attempted to take dominion of political or state functions (Papacy, Geneva, Cromwell, New World settlers, etc.), it has issued in failure. Does this imply that the perpetrators did not know of what Spirit they were? It certainly seems that way.

So let us not look longingly back to times in history when we imagine the Protestant church was very powerful in a worldly sense. If there was such a time (and some historians have certainly painted it that way) it is not worth an ounce of nostalgia. In reality the true church, as she is manifested in the world, is in the wilderness (Revelation 12:14). Unlike the false church (which is clothed in purple, scarlet and precious stones, Revelation 17:4), to the world’s blind eyes the true church is clothed in rags (Revelation 11:3). Only when the great consummation comes will she be seen to be clothed in white garments (Revelation 3:5; 19:8).

Eschatological Romanticism

Not only do people take longing looks at times past which they believe to have been periods of blessing, but they also yearn for similar times in the future. Reconstructionism involves working towards a future “Christianising” of the entire planet through the tactics of “dominion”. Not a few Reformed theologians have also speculated about this alleged “millennium”. It is their considered opinion that if the Cross is to be seen by the world as ‘successful’, then we should be building up to a scenario involving an almost wholly converted world. What a fleshly delusion that is!

This notion has been carried on today in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles by the ‘Latter Rain’ and ‘New Apostolic Reformation’ people and is known as “Kingdom Now Theology”, which claims that all those who submit to the self-styled apostles and prophets which proliferate today (which are actually false apostles and false prophets, as I showed in my book, “Signs, Wonders & Divine Revelation”) are to take dominion of key institutions in this world to prepare it for the return of Christ. Donald Trump is pastored by one such false apostle and prophet, known as Paula White. Trump was and is seen to be a part of the Church seizing dominion over state control, even though he is in reality a false ‘Christian’. This just shows what a mess the entire Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement actually is, and how deluded is the entire Pentecostal-Charismatic movement, which is plainly a satanic distraction from the real work of the people of God.

This entire Dominionist movement believes that the only way for God’s work on earth to be validated is for the vast majority, almost all, to be seen to be saved. However, rather than becoming concerned about how many people will finally be saved — and asserting (as even B.B. Warfield and Loraine Boettner have done) that it is dishonouring to God to imagine that more will be lost than saved — let us rely on God to do the arithmetic according to His own purposes (Luke 13:23). The Lord Jesus has come to save His own people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), and they most certainly will be saved. It is true that the universal Body of Christ will not, in the end, consist of a mere handful of beleaguered little bigots bailing out a tiny boat in storm-tossed seas. However, the Body of Christ is always a relatively little flock (Luke 12:32) in the world at any one time — a remnant according to the election of grace — but not such a little flock when cumulatively considered over the entire millennia of human history (Revelation 7:9).After all, “many are called but few are chosen” (Matthew 24:14). “Narrow is the gate and afflicted is the way to life and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). This is just the way it is. That is not indicative of failure but of God’s special purposes which we cannot presume to second guess or to judge according to what we would have done if we were God! I can barely believe the hubris and sheer arrogance — not to mention the idolizing of human free will — of those who try to impose humanistic judgements on the actions of God in matters of salvation.

It is a notable fact that Reconstructionists are very concerned about how things appear to the world in history. For example, Gary North writes: “Let us abandon pessimillennialism in all its paralysing forms. We were not intended by God to be historical losers!” [Gary North, Is the World Running Down? (Dominion Press, 1988), p.280]. By “pessimillennialism”, he means any eschatological view which is not postmillennialism! But there is a vital truth at the heart of the Scriptures which Reconstructionists completely overlook when they survey the panorama of church history. For the Lord works out His redemptive plan of the ages in ways which run strikingly counter to those which are applied by worldlings. The way that the Lord works is what I call the ‘exaltation paradox’. Let us go into this a little.

The ‘Exaltation Paradox’

G.K. Chesterton neatly defined a paradox as “Truth standing on its head to gain attention”. This profound fact is nowhere more apparent than in the Lord’s ways of working with man in the redemptive sphere. Let us examine the Scriptural evidence for this phenomenon: An important reference point used to describe how the unbelieving world views the ways of God in salvation is the word “foolishness”. (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:27). For the person who is not empowered by the Holy Spirit can never really comprehend spiritual matters, and so judges God’s plan of redemption to be entirely absurd.

The Lord Jesus was Himself a frequent user of the exaltation paradox, e.g. when He spoke of death leading to life; abasement bringing exaltation, etc. (Matthew 23:12; 16:25; Luke 14:11; 17:33; 18:14; John 12:25). Indeed, His whole life’s work was a veritable celebration of the ‘exaltation paradox’ (see Philippians 2:3-9). Whereas Satan was created as a servant (Hebrews 1:14) who made himself into a god, Christ was God who made himself a servant. That is the Divine contrast which sets the tone for everything. What this paradox denotes is that God stands human wisdom on its head in order to demonstrate the superiority of His own wisdom (Zechariah 4:6; cf. Jeremiah 9:23-24). Accordingly, the one who is in Christ must also behave in complete antithesis to the accepted norms of the world in order to achieve his God-given ambitions. The Apostle Paul knew this beautiful secret. He knew that in order to be strong he had to become weak (2 Corinthians 12:10), because the Lord’s strength comes to fruition precisely in situations where human weakness most manifests itself (2 Corinthians 12:9). This is because it must always be the Lord who has the glory — that no flesh should glory in His presence (1 Corinthians 1:29). This is the very opposite of mere “triumphalism”, which is well defined by Chambers’ as “an attitude of righteous pride and self-congratulation in the defeat of perceived evil”. For evil is always defeated by the Lord in such a way that only He can have the glory; and it is always defeated in such a way that it is never perceived as such by the world — for these things can only be discerned by those indwelt by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:12-14). However, Dominionism/Reconstructionism gives the glory to humans.

By way of example, consider the killing of Abel (Genesis 4:8). Satan must have thought that through the agency of Cain he had destroyed the bloodline which would eventually give birth to the Seed (Christ) promised in Genesis 3:15. Outward perception told him this. But he was profoundly mistaken (cf. Genesis 4:25-26; Luke 3:28). The same principle applies to the martyrdom of any believer: Outwardly, it seems to be a defeat; yet through just such an ignominious demise, the victim goes into glory. When it is written that it will be granted to the beast “to make war with the saints and to overcome them” (Revelation 13:7), does it mean that those saints are “losers”? From a crass worldly standpoint, yes — but spiritual losers, no! Again, when some of the church at Smyrna were (by Divine permission) cast into prison by Satan and charged by Christ to be “faithful unto death” , were they “losers” (Revelation 2:8-11)? To all outward appearances in worldly eyes, yes; but Christ showed them that their apparent position as losers in the history of this evil age would eventually issue in them receiving the ultimate accolade — the crown of life (just read it to see what I mean). Here is the bottom line: The promise to the one who “overcomes” is not worldly dominion but preservation from “the second death” (Revelation 2:11).

All this, of course, is foolishness to the world. That is the whole purpose behind God’s plan of salvation. God gets the glory because our victories are spiritual and can only be spiritually discerned. But the Dominionists and millennialists are not satisfied with the way that God has planned things. They want His kingdom to be of this world as well as in it. In spite of the biblical forecasts to the contrary, they crave for a worldwide visible worldly victory of the bride before the return of the Bridegroom. How can these folks not see this? It is because they are walking by sight rather than by faith.

The ‘exaltation paradox’ reaches its cosmic and historical zenith in the death of Christ. To the outward gaze, He was broken, His mission in tatters, arrested by the authorities, His disciples scattered. Yet this momentous “defeat” was the very event which wrought the destruction of its architect, Satan, along with the exaltation of its Victim and all His people throughout time and history (John 12:24,31-32). Christ “empties” Himself, takes the form of a servant, is obedient to death, and is thereby exalted and given the Name which is above every name (Philippians 2:3-9). This is the ‘exaltation paradox’ epitomised, yet it is completely misunderstood by so many in the churches today.

It is in imitation of this pathway that man and his carnal conceptual framework is forever humiliated, while God is eternally venerated. The saints will always overcome evil and Satan, but not through taking dominion over the institutions of the world or creating an earthly “Shangri la”. Instead, they overcome evil and Satan through “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony”, and by the fact that they do not “love their lives to the death” (Revelation 12:11). It is in the humiliation of Christ that the saints find their salvation. It is through their own humiliation that the saints find their glory. From humiliation to exaltation: that is always the royal pattern for those who are Christ’s. It is not our place, and neither is it our mission, to become big wheels in the world, taking over institutions and governments, playing at boss of the earth. Leave all that to the satanic power-mongers. They’re going to do it anyway, under permission of God, as He allows human evil to proliferate and show its true colours, just as is revealed in the Scriptures.

Reconstructionists will make the bold claim that Matthew 5:5 — “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” — proves that believers are mandated to take dominion of the earth now. But far from supporting the Dominionists’ cause, this verse actually proves the opposite. For it clearly shows that it is not through outward dominion that one will inherit the earth, but through meekness — an inwrought grace of the soul, not to be confused with wimpishness. Believers will indeed inherit the earth, but only when it has been renewed, and not before (Romans 8:21; 2 Peter 3:13).

A complete misunderstanding of the ‘exaltation paradox’, coupled with a failure to integrate the “not-yetness” of the kingdom of God has bred the triumphalist, pseudo-optimistic, millenarian mindset so prevalent in Reconstructionism and in many Reformed circles today. Please see the spiritual significance of all this. Christians will certainly appear to be historical losers for the duration of this present evil age from an earthly standpoint (cf. Revelation 11:7; 13:7); but behind all that they are really the cosmic winners. This is the ‘exaltation paradox’. When will believers learn to “walk by faith and not by sight”? (2 Corinthians 5:7). When will they learn that the kingdom has come in grace but not yet in all the fullness of visible glory. This is the root of the profound error which lies at the heart of Dominionism and all millennial yearnings. But the true believer must never lose heart at the way that things appear in the world. Why not? Because, in common with the Apostle Paul, he holds within his heart the great secret that

“our comparatively light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal”.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18

It is a monumental fact, ignored by many, that ”the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18). When will that glory be revealed in us? Not until the times of the redemption of our bodies. Read Romans 8:19-25 carefully and see whether or not there will be a visible earthly victory of the Church before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the world, as it is presently constituted, believers will continue to have tribulation to the end; but they have the additional revelation from their Master that He has already overcome the world (John 16:33). It is just that although the war has been won, the battle still continues in spiritual terms on this earth, and we have the weapons suitable to destroy satanic strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4). The war was won on the cross, and what is continuing throughout this present evil age is a ‘mopping-up operation’ as the souls remaining to be saved are brought into the kingdom.

The true believer’s duty is therefore to persevere, in spite of the inevitable tribulation to which he or she will be subjected (Romans 5:3-4). Errors arise because of the failure of saints and shepherds to be governed by the perspicuity of Scripture. Instead of interpreting the more obscure texts by those which are clear, they would rather ignore those clear texts and interpret the obscure texts in the light of their own eschatological system, or that of a man they admire. How long will it be before we come to the Word without our systems, ‘-isms’ and made-up prophetic timetables?

More Scripture-Twisting to Justify Institutional Occupation

Another twisted proof text which I have seen used by Dominionists and Reconstructionists is Luke 19:13 where the Lord Jesus tells the Parable of the Ten Minas in which “a man of noble birth” “called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Conduct business with this until I return, he said’”. The Dominionists and Reconstructionists seize on a dubious translation from the King James Version, “Occupy till I return”, and then claim this means that we should take over everything in the world, like a military occupation. [This is what happens when you make an idol out of the KJV (or any version), as a number of deluded diehards still do today]. But the Greek word dubiously translated there as “occupy” is πραγματεύομαι, pragmateuomai, which means to busy oneself or to do business — literally, to be pragmatic, to do what is the expedient thing to do. In other words, according to the context of the parable, “use rightly what you have been given to use” or, as ‘Helps Word Studies’ puts it “manage profitably the capital at your disposal”. That perfectly expresses what this parable is all about. Thus, this text is about ensuring that you use your talents, abilities and opportunities for evangelism to their fullness while you are in this world. It has nothing whatsoever to do with seizing occupation of worldly institutions and running the world like a worldly boss! We operate as Christ’s in the midst of a fallen world which is still permitted to be under the power of Satan (1 John 5:19), despite the fact that the war has already been won by Christ (John 12:31), and because of that we will be hated by the world (John 15:19; Matthew 10:22) and treated as its scum and offscouring (1 Corinthians 4:13). In God’s wisdom, the power of God is not demonstrated by us taking over the world and ‘Christianising’ it but by us plundering Satan’s pretended kingdom and stealing souls right out from under his nose, and there is not a single thing that he can do about it!

What Do the Scriptures Reveal Concerning the Future of History?

My hope for the ultimate future of the church is not a jot less than that of the Puritans — ignoring for the moment their quaint wishful-thinking so-called ‘postmillennialism’ (so-called ‘premillennialism’ is also just as illusory). However, it is not with the Puritans or any other humanistic source that we should be aligning our future timelines, but with the Word of God. To discover what life on earth will be like just prior to when the Lord returns, the key question to be asked is not “What did the Puritans think?”, or “What is Reformed thinking on this?” or “What did such-and-such a commentator think?” We must rather ask, “What do the Scriptures clearly reveal concerning the future of history and the status of the Church within it?” — setting aside, for the present, those more ambiguous, difficult to interpret passages of Scripture. According to Jesus, when He returns to wind up this present evil age, the overall state of the planet will be very similar to the time of Noah just prior to the Flood (Luke 17:26-27), and the time of Sodom just prior to the cataclysm which destroyed it (Luke 17:28-30). How were things in the time of Noah? Read Genesis 6:5; 11-12 to find out. How were things in the city of Sodom? Read Genesis 18:20-21 to find out. The picture here, in both illustrations, is of a wholly sinful, unconcerned world, carrying on its business as usual, steeped in evil and egocentricity. Where is a golden age “millennium” on this present earth here in these Scriptures? The pattern clearly shown in Scripture regarding this age and its climax can be summed-up in three bullet-points:

  • In the wake of Christ’s ascension, there is a lengthy period of Divine restraint upon Satan and his forces of darkness preventing them from gathering the nations into one confederated, conglomerate, genocidal, Church-destroying, Christ-hating entity, thus enabling the Ekklesia (symbolized as the ‘two witnesses’ in chapter 11) to proclaim the truth about Christ, despite human and demonic evil across the globe incrementally increasing as the end of the age draws near. (This is the real meaning of the thousand years).
  • This restraint is followed by a short period during which the restraint will be taken away and Satan will be divinely permitted to achieve his kingdom-building goal through the Antichrist and all the nations controlled by him in a one-world government. This will culminate in one vast global outburst of brutal, murderous persecution of the Ekklesia, which is called in New Testament Scripture both Armageddon and Gog and Magog.
  • This short period of demonic mayhem is immediately succeeded by the Second Coming of Christ, who will bring on the resurrection, judge the world, destroy the Antichrist and Satan, and bring in “The Restoration of All Things” in the new heaven and new earth.

This pattern is not some human-made system of eschatology. It is a pattern which is clearly established in Scripture. [For further copious details of this pattern, please download my free commentary on the Book of Revelation by clicking here and read pages 523-582]. Prof. Lenski corroborates this interpretation by making the following astute observation in his comment on Revelation 12:6:

“The old Jewish dream of a grand Jewish dominion over all the nations of the world — a dream that is constantly being revived to this day in the minds of all those who work to make the kingdom of God an outward world power and dominion — is just about the opposite of what John is here given to see in regard to the church. Ever, here on earth, she is not on the throne but in a place in the wilderness, a little flock under the cross. But the day of her final…“ransoming”, “redemption” (Luke 23:18; Romans 8:23; Eph.1:14), is fast drawing nigh”.

R.C.H. Lenski, Interpretation of Revelation, Augsburg, 1963, pp.370-371

In the eyes of the world, the church is a weakling; but with the spiritual eyesight (insight) of the believer and in the eyes of God she is beautiful and powerful and ultimately triumphant (Isaiah 43:1-7). If we fool the Lord’s people into believing that the history of this planet is leading to a largely converted, God-loving, law-abiding world which will usher in the return of the Lord Jesus Christ (for which there is not a scrap of genuine evidence in Scripture), then we are inculcating a grave deception which will only serve to create a false sense of worldly security and complacency. Millennialism, of whatever kind, is one of Satan’s greatest deceptions — a futile dream to satisfy the triumphalist fantasies of worldly conceits, to distract the sheep from their need to overcome affliction with perseverance, and to reduce the urgency of evangelistic zeal.

Rather than counselling the appearance of any golden age for the Church immediately before Christ returns, the Scriptures show an outwardly ruinous phase of persecution. Prof. H.C. Leupold writes, in his comment on Daniel 12:7 concerning the stark reality of this complete “shattering of the power” of the church before Christ returns:

“Hard though this seems, it is merely one of those necessities to which human pride and self-will put the grace of God before God’s gracious purposes can be accomplished. Strangely, man is so set on trusting in himself and depending on his own power that, unless that power is reduced to a helpless minimum, he will refuse to put his confidence wholly in the good Lord. Only after we have been rendered weak are we capable of becoming truly strong. Israel of Old Testament days had to be reduced to the impotence of the last times before the Saviour could come. So her trust in self will have to be broken again before the Christ can return. It is far more important to know that than to be able to foretell in exact terms of years how long this old world order is still to continue”.

H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, Baker Book House, 1969, p.541

The profound truth which lies at the heart of Daniel 12:7, Revelation 11:7 and Revelation 13:7 is a Scriptural snub to the entire eschatological ethos of Dominion Theology. Perhaps one can now understand why Reconstructionists are so intent on propping up the futile hopes of Satan by restricting the endtime prophecies of Daniel, Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation solely to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. As with any erroneous theological system, Scriptures which cannot be harmonised are squeezed out of shape in order to tally with that erroneous theological system. The seriousness of the warnings given by the Apostle concerning the testimony of the Book of Revelation (the coda and peroration of all the Words of God in Scripture) seems to have eluded Reconstructionists altogether (see Revelation 1:3; 22:18-19).

One of the main reasons why so many — including Pastors — feel such a heavy sense of disappointment with the position of the true church in this world is because reality does not match up to the triumphalist, postmillennial expectations gleaned from the many storybooks and fairytales available in Christian bookshops. Scripture reveals — no matter how events may appear to the contrary — that the oppressed saints throughout this age are blessed “with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3; 2:6). Remember this: it is “in the heavenly realms” — not on the earth. Unless one has a simple grasp of this fact one will either live in dreams or misery rather than biblical reality.

Wrongly Removing the Necessary Limp from the People of God

Let us, therefore, find it in our hearts to embrace the beauty and security of the ‘exaltation paradox’, knowing that for the believer even what one might call “bad times” are worked out for us by God to be spiritually good (Romans 8:28). When Jacob (a type of the church and the Christian) won his blessing from God, he left the scene with a permanent reminder of his weakness — a limp (Genesis 32:31). Dominion theology is a false strategy designed to wrongly remove that necessary limp from the people of God. When we stop limping we think we stand on our own two feet; and when we do that, we become wise in our own eyes.

EPILOGUE

In closing, I wish to stress that even though I raise a vigorous polemic against Reconstructionism, this does not mean that I do not embrace Reconstructionists as brothers and sisters in Christ. Indeed, I count at least one Reconstructionist brother as a good friend and a very challenging theological “sparring partner”. Many Reconstructionist writings are very stimulating and challenging. We should always bear in mind the truth that heresies (despite their divergence from truth) can somehow teach us many valuable things if we know how to look for them. Not that I am recommending following them. Far from it! But creative and perceptive believers know how to wring truth even from a dead husk! Accordingly, I conclude with a few important lessons to which the Reconstructionist Movement draws our attention.

1) Reconstructionism reminds us that Christians are perpetually engaged in warfare with a godless world and evil spiritual powers

Reconstructionists are, in the main, responding to the complacency and pseudo-pietism which pervaded many fundamentalist groupings earlier in the previous century. The church is not a cloister, garret or ivory tower: she is a doer and an achiever for her Redeemer in the world (Matthew 5:13-16). We are called to wage war against “arguments and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). This is supernatural warfare using supernatural weapons, not earthly power and prestige (2 Corinthians 10:3-4). The Christ-exalting preaching of the Gospel of salvation, together with an unselfish spirit, are the real tools of (spiritual) ‘dominion’ for the Christian (Revelation 12:11).

2) Reconstructionism reminds us that Christian truth is the only authentic force in the world to bring about real change

The world has suffered for too long from churches which have ineffectual wimps at the helm. Although it is the “meek” who inherit the earth, this does not mean wimpish, ineffective Christians. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself is characterised as being meek, yet He could walk straight through a marauding band of Jews intent on killing Him (Luke 4:28-30). When we realise that only the Gospel can make any lasting impact on the powers of the world and the lives of men and women, we must be doubly prepared to persuade people and to give a reason for the hope which is in us — but always tempered with that powerful meekness and a healthy fear of God (2 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Peter 3:15).

3) Reconstructionism reminds us that Christians should not adopt a fatalistic, defeatist attitude towards the future

Dominionism is, in the main, a reaction against Dispensationalism, which system has led many brethren into a stultifying fatalism concerning the future — thus preventing them from acting efficiently as salt and light. The fact that we know the universe will be burned up one day should not discourage us from adopting a positive attitude towards life, or becoming fatalistic depressives, as the world may last for some time to come. However, in any study of the pilgrimage of the church here on earth during this present evil age, there is really no place for either optimism or pessimism. They are both red herrings. There can only ever be a biblical realism: A church which (under protection, Revelation 12:6,14) is afflicted for a time, but which then finally comes into the fullness of glory — not through global dominion (for that is the realm of the Antichrist) but through devotion and perseverance.

.

.

© Copyright, Alan Morrison, 2023
[The copyright on my works is merely to protect them from any wanton plagiarism which could result in undesirable changes (as has actually happened!). Readers are free to reproduce my work, so long as it is in the same format and with the exact same content and its origin is acknowledged]