I previously posted “Five things Postmillennialism is not.” I then
began to dispel five similar myths about Dominion Theology. This post is
the completion of those five points.
1. Dominion Theology is not a
bad word
Point one is so long it got its
own post, here.
2. Dominion Theology is not
about top-down control
Many recoil at the term
“dominion” because it conjures images of what may better be called
“domination”: a taskmaster with a whip, a dictator in total control, forcing
agendas on an unwilling populace, or perhaps even something worse. But this
confusion is cultural or personal; it has nothing to do with what the Bible
teaches about “dominion.”
Dominion refers, as we said in point 1, to our works in the land, in
business, and in the family. It will involve government, too, but please note
that the biblical view is that government is supposed to be almost totally personal
and family government. In the quintessential “dominion mandate” passage
reviewed in point 1 (Gen. 1:26, 28), God expressly gives man dominion over
creation, but expressly does not give him dominion over other men. This
means that whatever else in Scripture can be said about the institution of
civil authority and power (the top down part), it is separate and apart from
the original dominion mandate given before the fall (it is also greatly
limited, as we shall say in a moment).
Proverbs 16:32 says, “Whoever is slow to anger
is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a
city.” The meaning here is clear: self-government is far superior to civil or
military government. The original dominion mandate given to Adam and Eve prelapsus
was one of self-government. This is also the call for the Christian, and the
goal of Christian society. It absolutely must be, therefore, a vision that
starts from the bottom up.
Christian Reconstruction,
Dominion Theology, starts with the regeneration of the individual soul. Until
some level of critical mass is reached here, culture cannot be changed because
individuals will not be self-governable according to God’s law (Rom. 8:7).
There were (and maybe still
are) some in the movement who believe the path forward is to have a “revolution
of the elites”— to capture the seats of power by those in favor of Christendom.
This is the old Constantinian model in which the emperor—or the powers that be
in general—declare that the laws shall be Christian and force everyone to live
outwardly by them.
This view not only produces
mass hypocrisy (among masses and leaders alike), but is expressly condemned by
Jesus himself (Matt. 20:25–28). For
more on this, read my response to Rev. Dewey, particularly my
comments about Gary North and James Jordan’s “elitism” in Healer of the
Nations (1987, p. 301). It is also a critique that can fall upon some
of those who see “Kuyperianism” as the way forward. There are certain good
things about Kuyper’s teachings, but our views must be delimited by a purely
biblical social theory as well.
Dr. North further elaborates
the view in a more down-to-earth way in his essay, “The Dogcatcher Strategy,”
which is nothing more than bottom-up thinking applied, as well as a good
critique of why all the focus on the presidency is radically counterproductive
for Christians.
3. Dominion Theology is not
about political power
Related to the last point, too
many people think the goal of Dominion Theology is to capture political power
and then impose some agenda. But again, not only is the biblical perspective of
dominion not “top down,” it is not even primarily political. It is not
even political first. Dr. North has a motto, in fact, that goes,
“Politics fourth.” I agree.
Since Dominion Theology must
begin from the bottom-up. It begins, again, with self-government. If you can’t
make progress here, what point would it make to sit in power over others? What
biblical sense does it make to control others when you can’t control yourself?
Granted, all men will remain sinners, and thus all leaders, whether
ecclesiastical or political, will be to some degree imperfect, but the point stands
as the broad generality that it is.
The point goes much further,
though. The biblical view of politics demands a civil government vastly reduced
in size, scope, and power than what we have. The purpose of the bottom-up
Christian revolution Dominion Theology envisions is that self-government,
family government, church governments, private organizations, private
businesses, and private charities replace the vast majority of civil government
agencies we have.
This reduction would not only
include the things most Christians today see as tyrannies, like Federal
overreach in religious liberty, marriage, abortion, etc., but also the vast
array of tyrannies that most Christians today cannot see are tyrannies:
public education, publicly-funded police, social security and medicare, a large
standing army, fiat money and banking, administrative (executive) law,
government regulations, protectionism, taxation in general, and much more. Most
of these things, in fact, Christians today accept as good and right. We need to
progress to a vision of an even freer society that sees these things for the
tyrannies that they are—according to biblical standards.
Far from being about political
power, Dominion Theology is about the virtual elimination of political power
for everything except a very small scope of criminal and civil justice.
Instead, it is the Christians who demand the status-quo tyrannies that we have
now who are the real proponents of “top-down” political power and a focus on politics
to solve our problems. Dominion Theology wants a better way: the way of freedom
and small government.
4. Dominion Theology is not
about personal prosperity
I have covered this under point
1 of Five things Postmillennialism is not. The same
point applies here to social theory as to eschatology. We could say that the
answer here is both yes and no. Some people—whole theological movements, in
fact—treat the Bible’s teachings about prosperity as radical individual
promises. But this is the “no.” Just as with eschatology, Dominion is not about
every individual personally getting rich. It is instead a
covenantal—corporate—reality. But since it is a corporate reality, this means
there is an element of “yes” here, too.
I think this “yes” has two
features: first, it means that in a society exercising godly dominion, everyone
in general will be better off. Just as socialistic societies in the long run
make everyone poorer overall, and often leave entire nations totally
impoverished, so godly Dominion leads to just the opposite. In general, in a
godly society, everyone will be elevated. In successful cases, the poor will be
as well off as even the middle and upper classes (if there can be said to be
that) in socialistic societies.
The second feature is that the
corporate reality of covenant blessings creates a general environment for
prosperity in which some people will in fact get wealthy, and some fabulously
so. A godly society will be marked by certain levels of “income inequality,”
but the general blessing and general godliness of the people will not produce
the type of sniping and backbiting against “the rich” found in socialistic
mindsets. Instead, you will see the general acceptance and even thankfulness
for the wealthy among us: for we will be thankful for what we have, thankful
for others even better off than ourselves (for they will have gotten it without
corruption), and thankful for the general environment in which everyone
benefits—even if at different levels. In such an environment, you will also see
a dramatic increase in private charity from the wealthier individuals.
5. Dominion Theology is not
hastening the return of Jesus
This last point is also
something of a reiteration. Critics from premillennial viewpoints have for a
long time caricatured Postmillennialism as the belief that Christians must
create the kingdom of God on earth by the works of man before Jesus will
come back. These same critics, and others like them, level the same charge
against Dominion Theology.
This error not only ignores
virtually everything we have written on the subject, it also ignores the simple
teachings of Scripture about Dominion (see point 1). Dominion Theology teaches and
emphasizes the original dominion mandate given to Adam, and later reinstated in
the Great Commission.
Further, Dominion Theology
does, and always has, viewed the work of Dominion as a work of the Holy Spirit through
the members of the body of Christ. This is the same way most believers view
evangelism in general: it is a work that is carried out through the members of
the body, but the success of evangelism cannot be said to be done by them.
The rest of the Dominion mandate—the reconstruction of every area of life
according to the law of God—is exactly the same. Men are involved, but only as
regenerated and led by the Holy Spirit. (I have a section in The Bounds of Love on this point as well, pp. 101–110.)
With Postmillennialism, we
believe that Christ will not return one moment before all His enemies are
destroyed (1 Cor. 15:21-25; Heb. 10:13). Therefore, He will not return one
moment before the Christian Reconstruction of the entire cosmos. But nothing
that any man can do will hasten that day. It is entirely in the hands of the
sovereign God, and can only come about through the advance of His Spirit.
Until then, it is our job to
preach and teach the whole counsel of God, especially to His people who are
greatly lacking in a total biblical worldview, and who have been deceived with
a much more limited scope of the Kingdom. But we must also evangelize others to
turn to the comprehensive Christ, and teach them everything He has commanded
us. This means teaching Dominion Theology.
