Politics of Christian Domination
Much has been said about the “religious right” in America, and the influence of apocalyptic beliefs on current policies and pressures. But unfortunately, the depth and complexity of the topic is rarely addressed. It is rhetorically difficult to make a memorable and impressive point against a movement while admitting its complexity, on either side of an issue. So in the interest of addressing complexity I am not going to retrace the arguments for or against specific political positions, and I am not going to get into any detail regarding the role of religion in public life.
The main focus of this article is a deeper glimpse into the visions of conservative Christians, and of more extreme Christian movements in politics, how they approach issues of power and political domination, and the world-view different groups use to understand situations and justify their positions and plan of action. In the process, relevant interpretations of prophecy, the role of religion in politics, beliefs regarding the apocalypse, and sometimes manipulative group dynamics which shape and motivate certain movements, will come into play.
The popular “Left Behind” type of scenario of the end-times will be surveyed, but other interpretations of the Book of Revelations and ideas concerning the destined/prophesied role of the church are also very influential in more extreme circles. These views have subtle influence among those who uphold other positions on the end-times, and are part of the climate of the “religious right” at the highest as well as the lowest levels. The resulting combination of influences and movements may potentially have dire political ramifications and raises questions as to what sort of extremists are hoping to manipulate/use the more conservative “religious right.” Also, we will look at certain types of church discipline and manipulation which crop up within some pentecostal and charismatic churches, and issues regarding the Latter Rain, as well as the the cell church network and discipling movement, which both have influenced the larger Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian community.
As a whole, this overview is intended to paint a complex picture of what is called the Religious Right and its relationships with extreme Christian politics in America, leading to a more in-depth understanding of how people with different aims, different visions, and different levels of desire for leadership and power, interact within the broader conservative Christian political scene and religious culture. Secretive and authoritarian networks have woven themselves throughout this culture, to varying degrees, carrying with them concepts commonly held by Christian extremists, and sometimes with explicit links to groups on the extreme right.
To continue with this article, please follow the links below.
Correcting Distorted and Oversimplified Images of the “Christian Religious Right” and Its Opponents
Background: End Times Terminology, Underlying Theologies behind Christian Politics (Augustine, Calvin, Darby)
Development of Theological Currents: “Left Behind”, Survivalists and Militants, Theonomy/Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstruction
Other Developments and Mixtures: Cell Churches, Discipling, The Latter Rain, Kingdom Now, British/US Israelism, Christian Identity
Correcting Distorted and Oversimplified Images of the “Christian Religious Right” and Its Opponents
Before I get to other issues, I want to try to correct some oversimplifications from the start.
Critics of the “religious right” come from many perspectives, Christian and non-Christian, conservative and non-conservative.
From conservative Christians and within the Right:
It is not only liberals like John Shelby Spong who argue that the “religious right” is attempting to steal Christianity or manipulate Christians. Some of the critics of the “religious right” are conservative Christians, themselves. This group is generally underestimated. Also, among those professing to be born-again Christians, a significant number do not identify as “conservative” politically. According to the Born Again pollster, Barna, 42% of Born Again Christians voted for Al Gore and Born Again Christians who are not evangelical are more likely to be aligned with the Democratic Party (40%) than the Republican Party (35%) And among Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, who despite differences tend to share similar conservative moral standards and religious values, you will find people who are considerably distressed by the Christian Coalition, John Ashcroft, President G.W. Bush, harassment and violence toward homosexuals, and anti-abortion extremists. Some of this results in their support for political positions that are more moderate or even directly opposed to those of the “religious right”, although they are religiously conservative themselves. Many otherwise conservative Catholics are wary of the religious right because of a history of anti-Catholicism in this country. Yet some of the other Christian critics of the “religious right” include Identity Christian groups like the Aryan Nations, which is racist and violent. Other critics include economic conservatives who hold moderate social views, whatever their personal beliefs and approach to religion, but these “social moderates” have been put on a leash within the Republican party, or have been marginalized as Libertarians. And we should not forget those who truly are moderates and independents.
Others:
Much is made of the “liberal media”, but in my view the culture of “the media” as a whole was always more hysterical than political, never really liberal or wedded to a particular politics; if anything the bias seems to be that of the educated with upper middle class sympathies and social ties, tending to be out of touch with working class people and union issues, as well as certain religious sentiments. Religious opposition to the “religious right” has been caricaturized as the liberal or radical “religious left”; this image downplays many moderates and mainstream religionists, along with the religious conservatives who for whatever reason do not endorse specific conservative social agendas that are marketed to religious conservatives by the political powers that be. Most Christians belong to mainstream churches, which tend to hold moderate social/political positions. By contrast, the Christian Coalition and the “Moral Majority” spoke for a minority of Christians in America. Your “average joe” whether Christian or not, is a critic of the religious right. It isn't just liberals and non-Christians who question the vision of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Operation Rescue, or Ashcroft... but this should not come as a shock, though it might very well seem to be one of those “well, yes, I guess so, but funny how I haven't considered that very much” sort of ideas if you've been immersed in either the mainstream media or conservative Christian culture and don't happen to be an “average joe” critic of the “religious right” yourself.
The main basis of the issue between the “religious right” and others, goes beyond the slogans and catch-words.
Criticism of the “Religious Right”
In the eyes of many on the “religious right,” their critics and opponents are in cultural warfare against Christianity, against Christ, or else their opponents are seen as naturally enough pawns of Satan since they are un-redeemed and sinful, non-Christian. But it is the “religious right”, rather than its critics and opponents, that tends to view the issue in terms of a culture war against Christianity. And as mentioned above, the reality is that many critics of religious politics are themselves Christians or have beloved Christian family members and friends. Do many Christians, even emphatic conservative Christians, really feel that their own Christianity is being attacked because they simply have to deal with others who have different views. Do many conservative Christians really feel under the gun simply because the overall culture doesn’t always presume that everyone is Christian? The tensions and cultural struggles need to be looked at more seriously, to understand what the real issues are, and to avoid exaggerations and caricatures. For some, such contact with non-Christians is seen as so contaminating that it forms sufficient motivation in and of itself for cultural war or total separation from the mainstream, but this cannot explain the broader conservative Christian political movement.
Most of the opposition and criticism religious people receive personally, comes from within their own family, and also from co-workers and neighbors that they may respect and like. Religious conservatives don’t typically get worked up that their well meaning, cordial neighbor or cousin is in cultural warfare against them. The charge of anti-Christian influence or cultural warfare is usually unleashed on more distant people who aren’t known personally, on institutions, celebrities, Hollywood, and politicians, while one’s loved friends, neighbors, or family are given leeway, prayed for so they get saved and forgiven, etc. Even when such close people are considered deluded by Satan, the venom considered appropriate when fighting others under demonic sway is usually avoided. After all, no one wants to see a loved one condemned or blamed for evil. People either have faith in a certain religious idea or do not, regardless of anyone else's wishes, and deep down religious people usually know that different people just tend to see things differently. When the more serious issues are at stake, this is a cause for worry and concern, but usually also one of faith in a merciful God’s efforts to give loved one’s every possible chance.
Reaction to the Media
In comparison to continuing personal relationships, the TV channel can be easily changed or turned off, and movies or books can be easily avoided, relieving an immediate cause of irritation at whatever impersonal or generalized challenge is presented by mainstream culture. Yet spokespeople for the “religious right” show little charity, mercy, tolerance, or hope is offered to “the media” and its representatives, the very human people who report, investigate, act, sing, and write… people with families and often a Christian relative praying for their wellbeing. Whether one's position is left or right, religious or secular, the media and its personalities are easy targets when they become irritating, simply because they are easily clicked off, they play roles and easily become symbols, and because we do not immerse ourselves in their daily lives in a way that helps us to see them as just like other people we know.
The Social Challenge
On all sides of religious issues critical challenges could be handled better. It really should not be a surprise that people will argue against conservative values or particular Christian beliefs, just as conservative Christians will argue against people's lack of those values and beliefs. It is no surprise to me that certain outspoken critics find spiritual people to be idiotic or insane by default, just as many outspoken religionists believe that unbelievers and various sorts of sinners by default are deluded or evil and go to Hell.
In contradiction to claims that Christians are being persecuted in America, Christians are not being physically threatened or beaten for being Christian, are having no difficulty selling many books and records, raising up Christian Bookstores, handing out leaflets, yelling on street corners, getting politicians to invoke Jesus or God or Christian values in public, and promoting their views on Christian radio stations. Christians do not face the sort of harassment, vandalism, unfair treatment, and violence that many homosexuals, Wiccans, and Jews continue to face by extremists. It is more that Christians no longer have an informal guarantee of having their position considered privileged or automatically respected. They more often get challenged in public, by classmates, and by coworkers. Challenges are at times unfair on either side.
There are certainly social environments where Fundamentalism or very conservative Christianity is considered very unfavorably. And people feel more free to express their critical opinions, even with snobbery and rudeness. Does anyone wonder that this makes conservative Christians uncomfortable? Depending on the region, forum, or political environment, a double standard, bias, or inconsistent policy may work for them or against them, as people struggle with how to handle religion in public life. They cannot expect to always come out on top, or even respected. Whatever frustration and anger they may have over this, Christians do not expect to be able to blame “secular humanist” culture or non-Christians on Judgment Day for any of their failings or for any loss of faith they may suffer by being challenged. Yet anxieties regarding their own spiritual failings, and the condition of the world, can significantly motivate desires to see culture reinforce their values more, for the world to more actively support their religious values and standards, and also to help their loved ones get saved.
Distinguishing Between Conservatives and Extremists
A lot of tension arises because the culture in America is so very modern and secular, and many conservative Christians want to change that landscape. It is important here to distinguish between conservative and radical or extremist Christians. Although there are extremists who interact with, inter-penetrate, and attempt to manipulate and use, conservative Christians and the Religious Right in general, and although extremists may pose as conservatives, there are significant differences. Conservatives tend to want to hold onto the aspects of culture that are more congruent with their own values and beliefs, they want to conserve the good of the past, and what they see as traditional values. A true conservative in America would tend to appreciate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than want to chuck it out in favor of radical theocratic visions. The genuine conservative, as opposed to the radical or extremist, does not want vigilante actions, extreme authoritarianism, heavy handed police tactics, or a total breakdown and reconstruction of society.
Extremist Christians can be severely critical of the “religious right,” Christian conservatives, and the Republicans, considering them to be sell-outs, delusional, or even agents of Satan. Other extremists appeal to “conservative values,” but any so-called “conservative” that wants Christians to seize power politically, glorifies authoritarian Christian rule, and wants to run the whole world to route out heathenism by human efforts is no conservative, but is rather some sort of extremist, radical, or fascist. Some on the “religious right” teeter between conservative and extremist politics. Some are militant and use terrorist tactics. Yet others separate and withdraw into a bunker, running an extremist group in isolation, stockpiling weapons in preparation for the attack of the Anti-Christ, but wanting to withdraw rather than to start a fight. Others are extremists in religion but do not stockpile weapons or set up an army or prepare to fight physically. None of these are simply conservatives, if the word conservative is to have any meaning. And yet, these extremists can be described as taking the conservative opposition to various aspects of mainstream culture several steps further.
Christian Struggle Against Mainstream Culture
Keeping in mind the spectrum of political tactics and the differences between conservatives and extremists, it should be noted that they are the ones who are particularly fighting a cultural war over religious issues (albeit with differences in vision and tactics.) Yes both the religious right and their opponents are fighting over cultural issues, but I say it is the religious right that is particularly fighting a cultural war because most non-Christians, Christians who are not quite so separatist, those who do not mind interacting with those who disagree and welcome two-way criticism, Christians who are not Fundamentalist, do not tend to feel they have to fight either the mainstream or Christianity, they can simply go with the flow and attempt to keep what they have gained should anyone threaten to roll things back. Surely people are working to continue transforming culture in a vision that differs significantly from that of the “religious right,” but they are building on the currents of change that have been shaping the mainstream culture for some time. In contrast, many conservative and all extremist Christians are indeed fighting against the cultural changes that began over a century ago, changes that are now fairly well established. The cultural changes were started by impersonal forces before any of us were born. Reversing the changes involves a struggle against the flow, while attempting to build on established changes involves less of a struggle because it is more with the flow. Especially now, the critics of the “religious right” are not opposed to our current culture; they see themselves as resisting the attacks of the “religious right” who do say it is a cultural war and do see themselves as fighting against our current culture.
The 1960’s can not be blamed for the changes that happened as the country became more industrialized and technological, for the flights to the cities for jobs at the end of the 1800’s, and changing attitudes that had their roots far earlier in Mesmerism, the seances of the 1880’s, the flappers of the 1920’s, and the Beatniks of the 1950’s. No single movement or type of person is responsible for the state of our culture today. Hippies or Liberals didn’t just invent our world, it developed with the help of lots of people who are now dead, and some of the reactions and injustices on one side fed the rebellions on the other. And there are not just two sides – it is very multi-faceted. In the 1920’s many immigrants from eastern Europe came over, bringing more Catholics; a lot of the people who moved from South to North were black farmers and share croppers who needed jobs in places like Detroit. College professors and journalists did not cause all that. Dealing with many different types of views, intersections of different cultures, understanding different life situations, has lead to more flexible views of the world associated with our current culture. To entirely and radically stop and reverse that could require a very rigid apartheid or caste sort of system, rigid segregation, radical changes in immigration policy, violent struggle, or attempts at racial/cultural genocide. And yet to hold on to a tradition, to represent values that still have life and meaning, is a valid and understandable undertaking. In and of itself, there is much merit in resisting what are seen as negative cultural tendencies or holding out for higher standards and values.
Many religionists, however, want to more radically overturn the secular influences in culture and create a more Christian culture in America, to bring back the assumption that people are Christians, to reinstate various laws, attempt to recreate the atmosphere of a previous time or to invent a new Christian culture for the future. As with any such vision of what is the most desirable sort of culture, it is the question of how such change would be achieved and what about those who are of a different culture or religion, that is controversial. And selective memory and naive idealism plays a part in such visions on the left as well as the right.
Some things to put this in context: Fundamentalism began in the early 1900’s as a reaction to modernism and critical trends in Biblical scholarship. The movement built upon the energy of revivals that had begun in the 1800's. Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism were small movements much more on the outside the mainstream of Christianity until the last couple of decades. Most people within mainstream culture today are not specifically fighting Christianity or even conservative values, but certain Christians are trying to erode and fight various aspects of modernism and modern values. Other Christians and non-Christians are accepting where we now are socially as the starting point, as the world we happen to live in and must accept and deal with, trying to see it with its positives as well as its negatives. The conservative Christian minority (like many other minorities) wants to be approved of and be seen as the moral voice of America, to have their values and mores be the most respected position and the assumed starting point and standard, and to have their culture reflected more in the culture at large. Some of this is because they do not want to be tempted or lead away from their cultural values and mores when they go out in the community at large, and many believe such a culture would be best for everyone, not just Christians.
The Struggle Against the Religious Right
In comparison, many critics say that the basis of the conflict with the “religious right” is the issue of separation of church and state. But the idea of “separation of church and state” is an abstract principle, and people don't live day to day in terms of abstractions. And when people get worked up, any abstractions involved tend to represent concrete situations. The concrete reality is that though many fear what might happen if that separation of church and state is eroded, they do not fear this constantly, day by day, either. Being forced to go to church, to have to pretend to be a conservative Christian, etc., to get by in life, is a reality for the children of conservative Christians, or for some people in very small towns or certain schools and other atypical social environments, where social pressures may make people feel they must keep up appearances, but for the majority of people in America these concerns are far from the immediate reality. The fear is also a fear of the future, one that has not been created yet. Is this what people are really worked up about when criticizing the religious right? In some sense the off-the-cuff comments about extreme Christians are about whether the religious right wants that sort of future, and there is a serious concern that a climate of intense pressure to be conservative Christian would be the ultimate result of the “religious right's” political agenda, were they successful and got everything they want. There are also from time to time inconsistencies in applying principles, and there are at times quite a bit of over-sensitivity to Christian religious expression, and examples of critics failing to correctly “choose their battles.”
But mostly when dealing with these issues, setting aside slogans and arguments, the concrete reality of the struggle boils down to people not wanting the police to harass homosexuals and non-Christians, not wanting religious or sexual minorities to be vulnerable to landlords’ biases or discrimination in buying/selling their home, desiring justice against anti-semitic vandals or violent anti-abortion activists, demands that teachers do not try to convert one's children on the sly, values of fairness in protecting citizens and enforcing the law, trying to keep restrictive religious based laws from interfering with life in a world that includes people of various beliefs, a view that censorship of porn or violent images doesn't help or is an unwarranted intrusion of government, a concern that prohibition strategies are not the best way to handle social problems. The critics don't want presumption and privilege of certain conservative Christians to increase and then be abused.
Denominations, Visions of the Future, Theologies
For the sake of convenience, I will use the term “conservative Christian” to include conservatives whether they are Catholics, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostalists, Charismatics, or Fundamentalists. Most of the following End Times Theories and Prophetic Interpretation Frameworks have appealed to Christians of various denominations. The formal acceptance of some of them is associated with specific forms of Christianity, for reasons of historical development within specific denominations or movements, and sometimes because of a harmony between other ideas within a group. In a more informal way, such ideas move around and shape other groups and movement with contact, and individuals tend to have difficulty fitting cookie cutter expectations except perhaps in very socially controlled and pressured situations found in heavily indoctrinated/doctrinal groups. But experience shows that among Fundamentalists there are disagreements. Baptist theologians have had fistfights over disagreements on interpretation of the Bible, and these theologians believed in literal interpretation of the plain meaning of scripture. So unless a social demand for doctrinal purity is very strong, or unless there are what some would call cultic manipulations and group dynamics, diversity on some scale is to be expected.
The prevailing image of the conservative Christian's views of the end-times is shaped largely by movies and popular books which represent a sizable but by no means conclusive picture of the varying end-times scenarios and understandings of government, politics, and prophecy. Most horror movies can be discounted as mythologizing on a religious theme. However, several movies produced by Jack Van Impe ministries, and more popularly, the “Left Behind” series of books and movies, can be viewed as a conservative Christian version of either Bible/Prophecy study or horror entertainment. The framework accepted by these dramatizations is one among many, but their popularity makes them significant. Other conservative Christians do not accept various parts of these end-times scenarios, put things along a different time line, put different types of people (Christians, Jews, non-Christians, end-times converts, etc.) in different roles at points, do not accept this scenario at all, claiming that various parts already happened, or do not interpret the Anti-Christ as a single man. But among some groups the differences in explanation/understanding of prophecy is used to justify extreme political positions, and so these differences are important for reasons that go beyond comparative religion. Also the political theology of the role of the church are important, regardless of end-time scenario, as these effect the vision of the future for the world.
While denominational differences do play a role, the political extremists can be identified more by the application of their theology and understanding of the Bible to politics. So my emphasis will be on those aspects of Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, the Latter Rain movement, Dominion Theology, Kingdom Now, Theonomic Reconstruction, which either explain some of the positions of conservative Christians or the religious right in world affairs, or which play a significant role in plotting a political vision for a Christian nation.
Background: End Times Terminology, Underlying Theologies behind Christian Politics (Augustine and Calvin, Darby)
Terminology:
Anti-Christ – a spirit that is against Christianity; a man described as a world ruler. Some theories hold that the anti-Christ is a type of person or general tendency, while others say the Anti-Christ will look like a man, will become the ruler of the world, and persecutes Christians. Some say he will initially usher in peace for a short while and then become ruler of the world.
Tribulation – a period of persecution by the Anti-Christ, followed God's wrath and judgment.
Rapture – a controversial interpretation of scripture that says believers will disappear and meet Christ in the Air around the time of the Tribulation; those who believe in a pre-tribulational rapture hold that true Christians will be raptured before the Anti-Christ begins his reign of persecution; mid-tribulational rapture theories hold that some years will go by before the Christians are raptured so they will undergo some persecution by the Anti-Christ; post-tribulational rapture is the belief that Christians will go through the entire wrath of the Anti-Christ, typically a 7 year tribulation period, before they are raptured; others vigorously deny the rapture theory.
Millennium/Millennial Kingdom – thousand year reign mentioned in the Book of Revelations; A-Millennial interpretations hold that the Millennium is the rule of Christ over the church of today, and that the Kingdom is a figurative and spiritual representation of the church itself – this view is the one held by most Christians, is the official position of the Catholic church, and is accepted by most Protestants as well; Pre-Millennial interpretations look forward to a future millennial reign of the world by Jesus after an awful Tribulation period – this view is accepted by many Evangelicals, and is common among Fundamentalists and most Pentecostals; and Post-Millennial interpretations hold that the world will become more and more Christianized leading up to a long period of righteousness and peace where Christians rule the world, followed by Christ's return – this view has had influence among some Evangelicals, Charismatics, Pentecostals, and Fundamentalists, and has also been promoted by more extremist Christians.
Application of Theology and Influence on Politics
Two Major Theological Currents:
Augustine 's Replacement Theology, Calvinism's Covenant Theology, etc. Dispensationalism
Before going into specific End-Times scenarios, frameworks for Biblical/prophetic interpretation, or more extreme Christian political movements, I need to address two major influential currents of thought. The first current begins with St Augustine's Replacement Theology and A-millennialism. This view has been official Catholic teaching for some time, and was accepted by most of the Protestants after the Reformation. It finds further theological expression and development in Calvinist Covenant Theology. Later Covenant Theologians have adopted a Post-millennialist position. The second current is Dispensationalism and Pre-millennialism, which is associated with later Protestants who draw upon a view about the end-times that was popular before Augustine. In one way or another, both currents have had a large impact on Christian Politics, across the spectrum including moderatism and extremism, left wing and right wing. They identify two significant orientations in Christian religious and political thought, which have filtered down through the teaching of preachers and bishops, the denominations, and popular culture. Each places emphasis on an interpretation of the Millennial Kingdom, and on the prophecies of the future of God's people in a transformed world.
Augustine, Catholicism, Calvinism, etc.
St Augustine, in his famous work “The City of God,” argued for a metaphorical interpretation of the book of Revelations, and for an interpretation of the Christian church as a replacement for Israel (Replacement Theology), inheriting Israel's role and relationship to God as His chosen people. The Jews had rejected the covenant, so the Christian community got the covenant, and the Hebrew Scriptures were viewed as relating to the Christian church rather than to present day Jews. The ethnic Jews no longer had a role as chosen people simply by heritage. Augustine interpreted the Millennial Kingdom as the Christian Church reigned by Jesus as its King. Instead of expecting a worldly political battle with an Anti-Christ and evil forces, or trying to create a utopia or reform the world, Augustine advised that we focus upon the church. Yet the identification of the Christian Church as the receiver of the covenant of Israel conjures images of chosen people leading a nation under the direct rule of God. And when the Christian Church does have political power, the church-centric approach reinforces this political power over the world. The Augustinian view of the Millennial Kingdom and Replacement theology has been the official Catholic teaching for centuries, and the general principles were also accepted by most Protestants of the Reformation. Calvin developed a Covenant Theology framework for interpreting the Bible along similar lines, which today appeals to many Reformed and Presbyterian Christians, and has filtered through other segments of Christian political culture. Covenant theology emphasizes how the covenant was transferred from the Jews to Christians, and involves the role of a covenant of works given to Adam and a covenant of grace given to Christians.
Among some, this broader current of Amillennialism and Replacement or Covenant Theology has inspired an active Christian involvement in justice and charity, setting a good example for the world through positive Christian values. Among others a pessimism about reforming governments combined with a focus upon the role of the church in the life of believers has paradoxically lead to an almost apolitical acceptance of certain political abuses “in the world” on the one hand, but a church-centric acceptance of authority by religious leaders on the other, which has at times increased the power of religious leaders politically. Among others an emphasis on the importance of the church (or Christians as a whole) in disciplining and guiding other Christians has lead to seeking varying degrees of governmental political control to dominate culture or steer other Christians as well as non-Christians towards stricter moral standards, despite a general view that the church is more important/relevant than reform of the world. While the focus may be on the church rather than reform of the world, when the church, religious leaders and traditions, or Christian culture is seen in terms of THE legitimate authority and focus in life, instead of focusing on their role in inspiring and encourage reliance upon God over any other such worldly, religious, or cultural authority, the desire to dominate the world in the name of a Christian Kingdom may arise. For extremists, these concepts are used to support the effort to bring back the death penalty for leaving the Christian faith, homosexuality, adultery, etc. Associated with later developments upon Covenant Theology is the notion that the Jews betrayed their covenant with God when they rejected Christ, so all the promises from the covenant with Israel now belong to the Christian Church. This leads to applying the prophecies regarding Israel to the Christian church, and also the model of the Christian city of God. Biblical examples of the nation of Israel applying religious principles to social rule are seen as transferable onto the political role of Christians today. In practice this can range from applying general principles and values to politics and government, to out and out visions of theocracy/theonomy. The Post-Millennial view is sometimes incorporated into this sort of development, as it expects Christian Dominion to increase leading up to the return of Christ. In A-Millennial and Post-Millennial interpretations, sometimes the Anti-Christ is interpreted as a past ruler like Nero, or otherwise as a general principle, abstract concept, or spiritual force, rather than an individual ruler. Prophetically, the success, struggle, and persecution of God's People (seen exclusively as the Christians) may be related to various prophecies and Biblical parallels. The extremist Christian political movement known as Theonomic Reconstruction and Christian Restoration developed out of this background. We will refer to these a little later.
Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism is associated with John Darby (1800-1882) and the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917. In direct opposition to Covenant theology, Dispensationalism holds that the Jews and the Nation of Israel maintain their covenant and prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures. Fundamentalists and Pentecostals have in the past sided with some form of Dispensationalism, in understanding prophecy, the end-times, and the role of the Jews and Israel. This has resulted in an emphasis on what happens in Israel and to Jews themselves as fulfilling prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, eventually getting back their temple and starting up the old sacrifices again, getting back all of the land traditionally considered a part of Israel. This framework is said to “rightly divide the Word of God,” attributing to the Jews what belongs to the Jews, deriving what should apply to Christians based on what parts are speaking about the Christian Church age. Some have concluded, from interpreting the Bible along these lines, that the age of religious domination of politics is not sanctioned by God until Christ comes down from the clouds and rules himself, but this a now a minority position. Most Fundamentalists apply Dispensational concepts to explain how the temple regulations, kosher laws, and cleanliness prohibitions from the Mosaic Law, were for the age when the Temple was the focus of God's relationship with his people. When it comes to the details of running the state of Israel, most Fundamentalists would say the principles may still apply as Jesus said, to Christian government (death penalty for murder, punishment of disobedient children), but the letter of the law on eye for an eye and money or slave disputes was particular to the historic ancient government of Israel, designed for the Jews in ancient times before Christ. But others who are more moderate politically do take the Dispensational concepts to show that Jesus did away with the Law and the concept of government run by religion, arguing for personal spirituality and applying principles of compassion and justice to politics, rather than trying to enforce Christianity through government.
Dispensationalism teaches that there were several ages with different political situations and relationships between God and various people. In each of these stages or ages the nature of “getting right with God” differs according to the nature of the age and the people who are the focus of the age. Before Christ, the Jews were center stage as God's people, but with the Jews rejecting Christ, the prophecies concerning them were put on hold and the Christians had their age with the New Testament defining the terms of reaching God, etc. As the Christian Church age came to a close, Israel would be pieced together again, and the prophecies with the Jews that remained would be fulfilled, particularly the “Day of the Lord” the “Day of Wrath” and then the remnant that remained would be taken back by God after the Christians and Jesus defeated the Anti-Christ. Then a thousand year reign of Christians as priests and kings under the rule of Jesus ruling with a rod of iron would enforce the teachings of Jesus on those born in those thousand years and depending on interpretation, the newly converted Christians who came to believe during the tribulation. There are variations on this, depending on how people see the way God's laws operate during the different ages, etc. Extremist Christian political movements that develop out of this background include survivalist and militants who expect to live through some or all of the Tribulation and to have to fight the Anti-Christ's forces before Christ comes. These extremist Mid and Post-Tribulation Dispensationalists will be referred to shortly.
Mixed Views
Lastly, other movements that develop along somewhat different lines or mix aspects of these orientations, will be discussed, especially the Latter Rain movement and the Discipling/Shepherding movement that arose out of it. Other Latter Rain developments will be such as the teaching on the restoration of the Five-Fold Ministries, and Kingdom Now Theology (aka Dominion Theology, the Restoration Movement), will be mentioned later on along with the Manifest Sons of God doctrine. Many hold a view of the Tribulation, Anti-Christ, and End Times that derives from Dispensationalism, and combine with that a Post-Millennial belief that the Church must politically dominate the world before Christ comes to rule; such mixtures reflect the alliances and networking of Christians from various movements (Fundamentalists, Charismatics, and Pentecostals inspired by extremist theologians who come from a Calvinist/Presbyterian background). Also British Israelism, Christian Identity, and American Israelism, and links between extremist movements and ties with the broader religious right movement will be touched upon.
Development of Theological Currents: “Left Behind”, survivalists and militants, Theonomy and Reconstruction
Left Behind: Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism with Pre-Tribulation Rapture
In the Left Behind series and movies, by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and in the end-times movies by Van Impe ministries, true Christians disappear one day, and their friends and family members have to deal with the new world leader, the Anti-Christ. Some resist the Anti-Christ, but others are deluded and side with him. The Anti-Christ comes to power after an attack on Israel fails and the Anti-Christ makes a peace deal in the middle east between the Jews and Arabs, thus becoming the supposed bringer of peace. The U.N. makes him their leader, and Christians begin to be persecuted, food availability is manipulated, and the prophecies in Revelation, etc., unfold.
This sort of interpretation includes the state of Israel as a key player. For example, a war is launched against Israel from the East (China, Russia, and the Arabs), but the attacks do not harm Israel, in the case of Left Behind, the bombs burst in air and don't land on Israel, it is a miracle fulfilling prophecy, before the Anti-Christ steps on stage. In this view the Anti-Christ goes on to kill most of the Jews in a holocaust that dwarfs the persecution of Jews under Hitler, after/during which some are converted to Christianity. When the Anti-Christ's seven years are over, Christ comes down and with his forces kills all the followers of the Anti-Christ.
One of the key issues, politically, is that this view looks to prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the Jews and Israel and expects them to be fulfilled, thereby influencing their understanding of events in the Middle East. This view places a lot of emphasis on the existence of a renewed state of Israel, reclaiming the Temple, and then the Jews reinstating sacrifices in the temple. Since many who hold the Dispensational view believe in the Rapture, they do not expect to be here when the wars and tribulations start, or at least not though the whole thing, so there is a question as to whether some politicians may be more interested in being an agent of prophecy fulfillment rather than in the consequences or risks. Similarly, when an Anti-Christ and the Wrath of God is expected to destroy much of the ecosystems of the world in the very near future, any form of environmentalism is easily pushed to the side, and is even sometimes seen as part of the agenda of the Anti-Christ. So much has been written on this view, that I leave it to the reader to look this up more on their own if they are interested.
This type of Dispensational Pre-Millennial thinking, can distort interpretations of world events, influence foreign policy regarding negative attitudes towards the UN, International Criminal Court, environmental treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, and issues involving the Middle East, and especially Iraq (country surrounding the ancient ruins of Babylon), as well as Russia and atheistic China. Some want to “help along” prophecy or be an agent of prophecy according to their interpretations, although traditionally Dispensationalism maintains that we will not be sure when prophecy will be filled, and that God is the one orchestrating the fulfillment of prophecy and does not need our help.
Other interpretations of the Bible, prophecy, and the end times, which are sometimes combined with Dispensationalism, though in some instances they came from a background that is opposed to Dispensationalism, are explicitly political and domination motivated, and involve seizing power in the name of Christ, whether within the Religious Right or outside from the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Among the extreme religious right there are political tactics involving using these Dispensational ideas of world-prophecy notions regarding Israel and the UN to further a type of Christian culture and involvement in politics that is intended to provide a stage for further theocratic (actually theonomic) tyranny. We will get to some of these variations later.
Dispensational Views on the Rapture: Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, and Post-Trib
The Tribulation (persecution by the Anti-Christ and wrath of God) is described in the Bible as a very fearsome time, worse than any other in history. Those who believe in a rapture feel that God wants to spare them His wrath, which believers do not deserve. Unbelievers do deserve such wrath in their view, however. Some of the bolder proponents speak with glee about how we will be in heaven looking down enjoying the justice against unbelievers and the unfolding of God's glory as the plagues hit the earth and the Anti-Christ fulfills God's prophecy and as humans are tortured and destroyed.
It is the pre-trib position, expressed in the movies produced by Van Impe and the LaHaye/Jenkins Left Behind series, that maintains Christians will escape all of the wrath of the Anti-Christ. The mid-trib position is that somewhere during that time of the Anti-Christ Christians will have to endure the horrors but later get Raptured out of it so they may avoid the worst. The post-trib position is that Christians will have to go through the entire ordeal with the Anti-Christ's persecutions; the pre-wrath position is that true Christians will only escape the wrath of God that follows the Tribulation of the Anti-Christ. In some cases the Anti-Christ's rule is said to be 7 years, based on an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. In other views it is longer. In any case it is supposed to be worse than anything that every happened before. Among those who fear a possible mid-trib or post-trib reality, the bunker mentality can easily set in, justifying a survivalist approach, stockpiling weapons, fearing gun control and the UN all the more, etc. In some cases the need to be the army to fight the Anti-Christ is very prominent, since they do not believe they will be raptured before hand. Depending on whether they think the Anti-Christ's rule will be literal and obvious physically, or symbolic, various extreme positions can arise. If the Anti-Christ is seen as the Ecumenical movement, then fighting now to kill liberal Christians and secular humanists, Jews, Arabs, etc., can be rationalized. Pat Robertson has portrayed a Mid-Trib scenario in his books, but has also invited Post-Millennialists on his 700 club, and himself supports positions that draw from non-Dispensational, Dominion/Kingdom Now theology.
God's Millennial Reign is Now: Post-Millennialism and A-Millennialism
Those who hold that we don't have to worry about a literal human Anti-Christ in the future, except metaphorically or spiritually, are not without political/theocratic influence. Traditionally, the Catholic Church validated its earthly power to dictate, condemn heretics, etc., based on its interpretation that the rule of the Catholic Church was the Millennial Kingdom of Christ. John Calvin also placed a lot of emphasis on the role of Christian people as a church using their rulership and elders to rule towns and enforce Biblical laws and punish impurity and wrong thinking of the depraved fallen humans; since the Millennial rule with an iron rod by Jesus was the current situation already, at the hands of the Christian community, Calvin was concerned with how a Christian community should operate politically. Calvin's theology was the basis for the Puritans and also is the basis of Presbyterianism. With the most extreme members of the Catholic and Presbyterian churches, there is no need for an Armageddon or fight against an Anti-Christ to justify brutal rule and purging of the community by Christian politicians, in the past, present, or in the possible future. Such rule is seen as legitimate in principle, on the basis of Godly authority, and so any apologies for the Inquisition, witch burnings, and executions of heretics are too little, too late. The more extreme attitudes do not represent the mainstream view within the Catholic or main Presbyterian denominations today in America, but have typified historical examples from the past, and represent the beliefs of extremist and reactionary elements within these churches, some of the conservative or orthodox Presbyterian congregations.
Post-Millennialism: Theonomic Reconstruction/Christian Reconstruction/Dominion Theology
This is one of the most extreme forms of Christian Fundamentalist thought that arose from within the most conservative or orthodox Presbyterianism, with theological roots in Calvin's Covenant Theology and Augustine's Replacement Theology. They want to bring the entire world under the rule of the Word of God. This particular movement desires reinstating various Old Testament punishments for apostasy (leaving the faith), adultery, homosexuality, sorcery/witchcraft, etc. Their aim is to create a society based exclusively upon the Bible, which is called Theonomy (rulership by God or a government formed by God), a concept along the lines of Theocracy (government formed by the church or a representative of God). Among the most frighteningly authoritarian visions of religious rule of government in Christian thought, the stark and bold acceptance of reinstating brutal religious domination of society speaks for itself. Basically, this is the nightmare of freedom loving people whether they want more religious influence on society or not. This Theonomy and Reconstruction is very much against political freedom of thought and is even against Christian diversity. The Puritans of the Witch Hunts and the political/social tactics of the Church of the Middle Ages are among the role models for this movement; they find relevant guidance and inspiration from the slaughter of pagans in the Old Testament and the various attempts to purify Israel and exile or kill those who adopted influence from other religions or cultures. With this view, the Book of Joshua's focus on killing all the Canaanites, their men women and children, even the animals, sparing only the virgins for the men of Israel, and the condemnation on the Israelites for failing to succeed in that total annihilation, is a relevant message for a Christians hoping to make a Godly Nation today, provided the correct timing, opportunity, perceived provocation, and interpretation of God's desire and choice of leadership. This all proceeds from the Post-Millennial belief that Christ will come only after Christians take their rightful place as rulers over the world, and that it the duty and role of Christians, to dominate the world for God, so the world is suitable for Christ to come down and be King. Post-Millennialism's roots in Covenant and Replacement theology makes the role of Jews and Israel irrelevant, as they are seen to have forsaken their covenant and to be under the condemnation of the Law of works, like the rest of non-Christians, and like “false Christians” who do not qualify as “true Christians” according to their understanding of the Bible. The role of the “true Christians” is to dominate all others.
Leading writers in the movement include: Rousas John Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation (considered the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, author of “Institutes of Biblical Law”), Greg L. Bahnsen of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics, and Larry Pratt (head of the Gun Owners of America and English First, author of “Armed People Victorious” which deals with militias and para-military death squads, and campaign co-chair of the Buchanan presidential campaign in 1996.)
Chalcedon has had influence upon Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and the Christian Coalition.
As an example of a supporter of one of the variants of Theonomic Reconstruction, see The Vine and Fig Tree website's article on What Is Theonomy, which states that the future of theonomy is Christian Anarcho-Theocracy. He says on his Yahoo group, “Theocracy means 'God rules.' Every society is 'theocratic.' The question is, who is the God of our society? The God of the Hebrew-Christian Bible, or man the would-be god? More particularly, did the Framers of the U.S. Constitution envision a Secular Humanistic Theocracy, or a clergy-free Christian Theocracy, a 'nation under God'? This list examines all sides of these fundamental questions.” It is difficult to tell what exactly this particular combination of ideas would mean in practice, although the reference to a clergy-free “anarcho-theocracy” indicates a lot of Christian vigilante action, in place of relying upon the state.
The Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance website has a good entry on Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, and Theonomy
The conservative Christian Banner Ministries, which puts up the Cross Word website, very informative articles against Theonomy/Dominion Theology can be found: Articles on Dominionism (Restoration), which explores the influence of Theonomy and Dominion Theology within Charismatic churches.
Other Developments and Mixtures: The Latter Rain, Discipling, Kingdom Now, British/US Israelism, Christian Identity
Latter Rain movement
Within the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, revivals have repeatedly cropped up, serving as very vibrant and energizing forces. In the 1940's-50's *, the Latter Rain revivals had a huge impact, but afterwords many in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement considered the Latter Rain teachings to be false. However, many see similarities between the teachings of the Latter Rain, the Brownsville and Toronto Airport Revivals, and the Kansas City Prophets and those inspired by them, like Kenneth Copeland.
Five-Fold Ministries Restoration
One idea that came from the Latter Rain is the restoration of the five-fold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. What happened was various leaders claimed to be full blown apostles, and prophets were appointed to intervene directly as representatives of God to the believers. The authoritarian potential in this idea is most troubling... it tempts various leaders to abuse their power, and puts them in the position to control others and become an undue influence over matters they are not qualified to decide over.
Shepherding/Discipling Movement
From this came the Shepherding or Discipling movement which is still in force in various churches, not only in many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, but also in some Fundamentalist and Evangelical churches. In each case someone is said to be appointed by God to help a less mature believer, and going against the wishes of such a leader is considered blasphemous. The amount of authoritarian manipulation possible under this sort of setup is extreme, as guru-type relationships may be developed with all the fear of fire and brimstone and judgment that one would expect if one was dealing with Peter after the death of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5, or one of the fire and brimstone prophets of the Old Testament. In some cases individual life decisions were put in the hands of these “God given” guides.
The book Twisted Scriptures: A Path to Freedom From Abusive Churches, by Mary Alice Chrnalogar explains the manipulative and abusive dynamics very well, with help in untangling the confusion that results and clearly seeing how the manipulation proceeded so it can be undone.
There is a lot of information collected by Joel Elliott from the Department of Religious Studies of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, regarding problems with shepherding/discipling within the International Churches of Christ in Boston, may wish to look at this Preliminary Bibliography (updated in 1997); it certainly lists a lot of research on this movement from different angles.
The conservative Christian Watchman Expositor also has an interesting article on the Boston Church of Christ and Discipling * Note: Though the Watchman Expositor, has numerous articles on various non-Christian religions and expresses much concern about heretical doctrines within Christianity, does not seem to have any entries on Chalcedon, Rushdoony, Brahnsen, Larry Pratt, or Theonomic Reconstruction/Dominion Theology. However, they do have an insightful statement on the dangers of hierarchical and authoritarian groups which are obsessed with appearing righteous, whether Christian or non-Christian, for example, this article on Spiritual Abuse.
The conservative Christian Banner Ministries Cross Word website article, Roots of the Modern Discipling Movement provides a lot of background.
Manifest Sons of God
Another idea that developed out of the Latter Rain was a concept that Christians are going to have super powers as the second coming of Christ draws near. Christians are expected to defeat death, perhaps even before Christ comes again. They will be able to do everything that Jesus did. Although this concept is similar to those of the New Age and Gnosticism, within the Latter Rain (and the Dominion Movement), this is associated with the growing political and cultural power over unbelievers that Christians are expected to have as their duty to rule the world and make it suitable for Christ. A theocratic power-driven political attitude, one of domination, is thus wedded to what in Gnosticism and the New Age, and among most early Christians, was a transcendent spiritual concept associated with Jesus' Kingdom, which was said to be “not of this world.” Not content with a Transcendental Kingdom, a spiritual power, and super abilities in Heaven, they intend to bring down Heaven to earth. They storm the gates of Heaven to seize it like Lucifer, and intend to bring Hell to the unbelievers, just like the Christian/Theonomic Reconstructionists.
Kingdom Now Theology
With or without the Manifest Sons of God doctrine, the aspects of the Latter Rain that is connected to a flavor of Christian/Theonomic Reconstruction, is the Restoration Movement, Kingdom Now Theology, or Dominion Theology. The idea is that Christians should be ruling the world as the Millennial Kingdom right now, having dominion over the whole world, restoring the role of Apostles and restoring the world for Christ's second coming.
Kenneth Copeland and the Kansas City Prophets
The conservative Christian Banner Ministry's Cross Word web site has an informative article on the “Kansas City Prophets” that looks at Latter Rain roots of the teachings of some of today's Charismatic televangelists like Kenneth Copeland Old Wine in New Wineskins: A Look at the Kansas City Prophets
Cell Church and Discipling Movements
A movement related to discipling/shepherding is the Cell Church or Home Church movement. This is a strategy of church organization that relies on Cells or house meetings for singing praise songs, Bible study, etc. But often these “cells” are subject to a hierarchy of leaders in a network that can get quite deep. A new Christian would be sent by the pastor or other leaders in a church to a particular “cell” group, and receive guidance as a disciple from the leader of the group; that leader is in turn receiving guidance as a disciple from a leader of a higher level cell group of cell group leaders; and so on up a pyramid. The pastor himself is in a cell group and in discipleship to a guide, and so the links between churches, even with other denominations and independent churches, becomes quite extensive. Sometimes the idea of “covering” is brought in; as the blood of sacrifices in the Old Testament protected, assisted, or remedied faults of the priests of theocratic Israel, and as the blood of Jesus is seen to cover Christian's sins, authorities within this cell structure are said to be able to “cover” the members of their cells, through the blood of Jesus. Under the “cover” of this protection, risks may be taken with a sense of security, and obedience to faulty instructions is “covered” so that all in all, God's will is said to be done, and is guiding the whole process. In the Cleansing Stream ministry, the “covering” idea is begun in reference to the Spirit of God covering our spirit, which covers our soul, which covers our body. Then that is extended so that the husband “covers” the wife, who then both cover the children. When someone is out of line of the authority and system of “coverings,” then God is not happy, and troubles may come up. But if you operate under the “covering” of a “cell” or “super-cell” group leader, and that leader is not acting under the proper cover of the pastor, or is faulty, you are still pleasing God by being obedient to authority.
Connecting this to discipling, if the group leader is controlling and you wish to move to another state for a job, and your discipler/cell group leader does not feel it is God's will, they may ask you to pray about it, giving a subtle hint that it might not be God's will. If after praying you still want to move, they may suggest you pray together, and then the leader may indicate that you have not been entirely obedient to God in some area of your life, and/or that you are not understanding God's intentions correctly. In charismatic circles, this may be expressed as a word of God, while in other Evangelical or Fundamentalist circles, it may simply be expressed as authoritative guidance, with a reminder that believers should not make trouble for their elders. In other cases manipulation can be rather subtle. Several times, especially on issues that don't bother a discipler one way or another, the disciple can be encouraged to pray and left to whatever guidance they get on their own. But at some point it becomes important to manipulative disciplers to find something minor and harmless to disagree on, to reinforce the validity of the discipler, to reinforce the notion that God Himself connected the disciple and the discipler, and that obedience to the discipler is what God wants. Later on a more important issue, one that has serious impact on one's own life, or one on serious wrestling over religious issues, it can then be easier to pressure the disciple into complying with the discipler's wishes. Kindof a game of “take what you want a few times, now I'm going to choose, now you choose, now I assert authority” growing as the moves increase the importance of the discipler in making decisions in the disciple's life. Sometimes this gets down to the level of small everyday decisions like where to go shopping, or how to plan a weekly budget and how to handle friends, who to have as a friend, which friend to drop, which church group to go to.
When the cell group structure is combined with ideas of “covering,” discipling, and higher level cells connecting pastors and other leaders to Prophets and Apostles, it amounts to a full blown resuscitation of the Latter Rain. In some cases, the difference is only in the elimination of certain buzzwords and tip-offs. The “cell church” and discipling movement still exists in in various conservative Christian churches, including Fundamentalists, Pentecostals like the Assemblies of God (John Ashcroft's denomination), Charismatics, and Evangelicals. It is uncertain what connections exist at higher levels, or among specific cells one may not be aware of. While many church pastors would say, if pressed, that the Latter Rain had excesses and had some false teachings, it is unclear what motivations the pastor's peers and shepherds further extended or up the chain may have, and what views they may hold. One tactic of Christian Reconstruction, which was the inspiration for the Kingdom Now/Dominion Theology from the Latter Rain, is to support “stealth candidates” for political purposes, who do not explicitly claim to be a “Christian candidate,” and not to mention the Christian Coalition or Reconstruction, and various buzzwords. There are also religious leaders who believe the essential points of Christian Reconstruction or Kingdom Now teachings, but officially state that they aren't Reconstructionists because of some minor disagreement. At the very least, such people are natural allies for extreme Christian/Theonomic Reconstructionists.
British Israelism, Christian Identity, USA Israelism
Expanding on the Covenant Theology notion that Christians are the real Israel nowadays, other movements have specified that Israel, the white race, and/or the United States are Israel, and inherit the prophecies and promises of God's Chosen People. Of course, there is a tendency to be selective, as the curses and punishments on the Jews are often left on the Jews and the present day Nation of Israel, yet the promises and blessings may be handed over to the “true Christians”, the nations of Britain or the US, or the white race While that bias has had its effect on Christianity as it applied Hebrew Scriptures to contemporary Christianity and Judaism, in Covenant Theology the potential for selective application of the principle increased, and among national or racial extensions of Covenant Theology/Replacement Theories, the temptation is ever-present. Depending on current events, wishes, and resentments, the way prophecies are interpreted are easily skewed. In general, the one thing the Jews are typically said to inherit from their old covenant relationship is the curse for being unfaithful to God, as the covenant is eternally severed and replaced/translated to the faithful Christians. In some cases Jews who convert to Christianity then gain the promises and positive prophetic inheritance, but in Christian Identity, the Old Testament is divided up between those prophecies, judgments, and pronouncements against the unfaithful Jews and other nations, and the faithful Israelites of ancient times, which is said to have really been white Israelites, compared to the mixed race unfaithful Jews who are given curses and judged as lacking or evil. In these systems, the state of Israel and the Jews are a distraction or serve mere preliminary roles, with the “real” Israelites of today (Britain, USA, Whites) being the focus of end-times prophecy and promises of rulership over the world. Movements with these sentiments may easily draw upon Theonomic Reconstruction/Christian Restoration, Dominion Theology, and the Kingdom Now concept for support and justification for extremist politics. In the case of Theonomic Reconstruction/Christian Restoration, these movements share the concept of the Old Testament Covenant(s) and role of Israel today entirely belonging to Christians, as the real true Israel.
Links Between Christian Reconstruction, Dispensationalists, and Shepherding/Discipling....
Understanding Parallels with Christian Identity organization tactics and theology
One of the most troubling aspects of this landscape is the probable coordination of efforts, increased dialog between the Shepherding/Discipling and Christian Reconstruction movements. There are many long-standing differences between conservative/orthodox Presbyterianism, which is based in Calvinism and is the ground from which the extremist Christian Reconstruction movement was borne, and the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement from which the Latter Rain and Shepherding/Discipling arose. But at the authoritarian extremes, apparently, doctrinal differences and past theological spats are set aside as both consider how to increase the influence of the principles of “Godly Authority” in Christianity and in Christian nations, through religious/political leaders. Particularly troubling is the parallel tendency among Christian Identity racial extremists to work within a loose cell network to reclaim Christian countries to authoritarian “Christian” rule. Technically Christian Identity holds that the denominations as well as the Republican party have failed and are serving Satan. But there are independent Fundamentalist churches, free-wheeling revivals, and newer looser denominations or smaller groups of allied churches which also share this view of the denominations, and sometimes also of the “religious right” and republicans. Then there are also conflicts between these groups over issues of race, Republicans, and tactics involving using the political “religious right” groups.
But in some cases alliances, informal networking, and tactical maneuvering take place to take advantage of distribution channels, ties with money and power, and control structures. As an example of some of the connections and possibilities, I will refer to a small evangelistic group I have observed up close personally, which uses some of the more manipulative and authoritarian Discipling/Shepherding techniques, called Christ in Action. The leader, Denny Nissley, was a traveling street evangelist and now travels with his 18 wheeler to various churches to sponsor evangelism fundraisers, hand out tracts, distribute clothes or some food in emergencies, along with their religious message. He prefers to hook up new converts to some church he knows of who will guide or disciple the convert in what he considers the correct manner. He is good friends with a former member of the secret service who served President Herbert Walker Bush, has appeared on Pat Robertson's 700 club and met with Ashcroft and other members of congress, has Jay Seculow (of ACLJ, founded under Robertson) on his board of directors for his evangelism ministry, and was friends with the founders of National Association of Marriage... who happened to serve in Bartlet's Phoenix Assembly, which has deep ties to the National Policy Council and Paul Yongi Cho. Denny's right hand man and another close associate each said independently that they had undefined racist backgrounds, but it is unclear how serious their connections were, but now they see themselves as part of the Christ-centric rather than race-centric lifestyle. However, the subject calls to mind the known use of cell group organization among organized racists in The Order, Priesthood of Phineas, and Christian Identity groups, and among terrorist groups around the world like Al Qaeda, and the way this parallels cell church and discipling networks. Traveling figures like Denny can easily pass messages between cells, whether in traditional shepherding groups or cell churches on the conservative right, or potentially among more extreme and militant allies. Denny only met Pat Robertson briefly, but has Robertson's lawyer as a board member for his ministry. Pat Robertson has been known to Dominion and Kingdom Now positions and has invited major figures within that movement on his 700 club, which brings up the issue of how someone like Robertson connects with various conservatives and extremists. The church Denny attended, and is considered a minister of, is the Manassas Assemblies of God, pastored by Charles Nestor. Nestor was billed on an advertisement as part of a conference between major representatives of the Shepherding and Dominion movements, apparently part of a growing trend to connect movements which had previously been more independent due to theoretical/theological differences. The pastor denied that he knew what the conference was about when he allowed them to use his picture for the advertisement, and says he did not go to the conference when he found out what the conference was about, but it is difficult to assess such denials. Oddly enough, Pastor Nichols, another board member of Christ in Action, is related to one of the authors of a book on the Mauntauk experiment, and has spoken favorably about Scientology.
Whatever the case, and however important, unimportant, connected or uninvolved this particular evangelist and his pastor are in the most extreme or militant Christian circles, it is certainly chilling that extremists can easily use such networks and do have inroads and access to members of conservative religious groups and political power that reaches the mainstream. This access is sometimes through evangelists like Pat Robertson, and also through less prominent people who can act as liaisons between churches and networks, and can pass beneath the radar screen, people like Denny Nissley. Through the current cell church, lighthouse, and discipling movements, extremists can exert manipulative influence, pass messages, and potentially mobilize conservatives who have no conception of the larger picture. On the surface most of the cell church and discipling groups seem to take pains to avoid the buzzwords and more controversial or excessive aspects of the Latter Rain movement and the Discipling movement of the 70's, but manipulations, pressures, authoritarian tendencies, and undue influence, are definitely problems among some of these groups. It is difficult to assess the degree of these problems without intimate knowledge of people in particular groups, or without becoming subject to the guidance of a discipler/shepherd and thereby risking manipulation, becoming a pawn in various deceptions, or becoming blinded by being immersed in the situation and loosing a basis for accurate comparison and evaluation. Many people in cell churches or discipling relationships are strongly opposed to the positions of political extremists and out and out religious domination of government, and so they would be pawns in a game they do not consent to. The potential for higher layers and levels of shepherding/discipling to be involved in extremist movements is especially troubling, because it implies organized underlying ulterior political agendas for such networks and relationships across the evangelical and conservative Christian groups that have cell churches and one-on-one discipling. Certainly such abuses have happened more generally in these movements in the 70's, and recently despite public expressions of reform, the Boston Churches of Christ have had problems with discipling/shepherding abuses, and Pat Robertson's involvement with the NPC and continuing ties to discipling and Dominion Theology connections demonstrates that this problem could be extremely wide spread, with connections at the highest as well as the lowest, most secretive, extremist levels.
The parallels with Christian Identity need to be examined in some more depth. Whatever ties with racist organizations the religious right has, it is important to recognize that the extremist tactics, goals for political power and domination, and underlying theological agreement represent the core problem; the racism of Christian Identity simply extends the same extremism, militancy, and fanaticism of other non-race based Christian extremists to racial categories. There would be countless targets of violence, discrimination, and domination by either sort of group should they get the power they seek, and the harm they would do to a nation in their grips would be immeasurable. Right now, the destructive effects of their current influence and manipulation, and the potential of partial successes, or abortive attempts to seize more power through electoral, lobbying, or violent methods, is of more immediate concern. Particularly with a religious right president and attorney general, even a partial success for the more extreme religious right that provokes a response that overturns the attempt, could seriously disrupt the country.
Some Quotes From Jesus
On almost every page of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: “Oh, ye Hypocrites” and proceeds to criticize the holier than though religionists around him. Must have been a VERY important sentiment.
How Christians Should Lead... Through Service, Not Through Domination
Matthew 20:25-28 KJV... note “minister” is also translated as “servant”, one who ministers unto others
25 ... Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
This is Repeated in Mark:
Mark 10:42-45 KJV... note “minister” is also translated as “servant”, one who ministers unto others
42 ... Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Jesus on The Kingdom and His Purpose in Coming to the World, to Pilate
John 18:36-37 KJV
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.