Teaching on End Time Prophecy

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[everythingchrist]

What do you think?  Do they teach pre-trib as many evangelical churches or Kingdom Theology which is setting up a church-run kingdom on earth?

[EverAStudent]

Oddly enough, I think the majority of GCx pastors I have heard talk on the matter go with pre-trib rapture, trib, post-trib millenial reign.

[MidnightRider]

I was not able to vote. Is something wrong?

When I was in GCx (early 1980s), the teaching was the standard premillennial, pretribulational dispensationalism you get in most evangelical churches. Our church/student organization had meetings about prophecy to bring in new folks.

[Linda]

Is Kingdom Theology the same as Dominion Theology?

[puff of purple smoke]

I was not able to vote. Is something wrong?

Yeah, it's broken.

[MidnightRider]

Is Kingdom Theology the same as Dominion Theology?

That's not an easy question to answer since neither is a church or an organization with official headquarters. They are both movements that include some differing viewpoints and personalities. But at the risk of oversimplifying:

The two movements both reject dispensationalism, especially its view of prophecy. But there are some differences, at least in their origins. Dominion Theology is usually associated with R. J. Rushdoony and his disciples and is sometimes referred to as Christian Reconstruction. It is Calvinist in theology, post-millennial in eschatology, and theonomic in its view of the OT. The Wikipedia pages on Christian Reconstruction and Theonomy look like fairly accurate descriptions.

Kingdom Theology is usually associated with some charismatic groups like the Vineyard and I don't know much about it. 

[EverAStudent]

Is Kingdom Theology the same as Dominion Theology?

I understand that they are supposed to be somewhat different in key doctrines, but from the outside observer like me, they are similar.  Kingdom Now theology seems to be the idea that there will be no millenial reign of Christ because this earth is to be made into the Kingdom of Christ right now by Christians.  I do not know if it is fair to call Kingdom Now theology preterist or not, but in my mind it is precisely that.  The Emerging Church movement seems to be dominated by Kingdom Now thought.

Dominion Theology, or reconstructionist theology, is a belief that God wants Christians to reinstate the Law of Moses by which to govern the entire world.  In short, they see the Kingdom of Christ as nothing more than this present entire planet being ruled under the Old Testament Law.  (shuddering in my seat at the thoiught)  Some of the founding Pilgrim fathers of our country tried that in some of the first colonies but quickly abandoned the idea as they soon realized that vital Christianity cannot support the maintenance of the Old Testament Law in theory, in practice, or in the heart.

If you enter a church that espouses either view of dominionist theology, head for the doors and do not look back.

[Linda]

Interesting. The Dominion Theology people scare me (although I do think Vision Forum has a beautiful catalog !) I had really never heard of Kingdom Now theology.

[everythingchrist]

Question:  If Kingdom/Dominion theology is a slant of the emergent church, i.e. Purpose-Driven, Hybels, et al, however subtle it may be, is GC church an emerging church. I think of it as super seeker-sensitive at the outset to attract, then the control begins.  They use terms like "building the kingdom", which, on the outside, seems to mean eternal, but I wonder...anyone have any thoughts.  Is GC really emergent? 

[EverAStudent]

In general the Emerging Church eschews orthodox doctrine, even calling doctrine "making castles in the sky."  They generally endorse an "anything goes" approach to church conduct and doctrine.  In my opinion, GC is the extreme opposite of the Emerging Church.  GC is more akin to the Shepherding Movement than much else.

[MidnightRider]

Question:  If Kingdom/Dominion theology is a slant of the emergent church,   

If by Dominion Theology you mean the Christian Reconstructionists, there is no connection with the Emerging/Emergent Church movement(s) that I am aware of.

[everythingchrist]

I think I wasn't clear in what I wrote.  I mean "emerging" not "emergent" church.  I know the emergent church is really out there and obviously so off it could hardly go unsaid.  The emerging church being the post-modern approach, worldview, seeker-sensitive (not just seeker-friendly), watered down sermons, etc.  I know that they have a growth movement tendency which to me seems to be more of a club than a church.  No talk about praying for answers -- just ask the leader!
 

[EverAStudent]

Dominion-ism is the umbrella theology that asserts that Christians are to dominate and take control of the world in all areas: politics, civil government, finances, moral rule, worship, etc.  That alone is aberrant theology when compared with Romans 12.

Under this dominion-ism theology are sub-classifications, including both Christian reconstructionism (bringing back the OT Law) and Kingdom Now (making the present earth the literal Kingdom of Christ).

The Emerging Church is the same as the Emergent Church.  Some like to say emerging because they see themselves as fluid as the culture and are always emerging from within that ever-changing culture.  Some like to say emergent because they are an outgrowth of the culture while being part of it.  But they are one and the same movement.

Dominion-ism theology is linked to the Emerging Church in so much as the published emerging "leadership" like McLaren and Sweet have declared that there is no future millennial reign of Christ and that God expects the church to transform this present planet into His ultimate kingdom.  Since they have renounced a belief in Hell it is a fair assumption that they think this present planet will also become the future paradise, which is the ultimate in dominion-ism theology.

Of course, I believe that there is a future millennial reign coming when Christ literally returns.  After those 1000 years, the earth will be incinerated along with the rest of the universe and Christ will create a new heavens and a new earth and place His throne in a new city called New Jerusalem, and He will literally dwell with His transformed creatures for eternity.  Dominionists hate to hear that version of the end times, but I believe it to be true.

[MidnightRider]

Dominion Theology, or reconstructionist theology, is a belief that God wants Christians to reinstate the Law of Moses by which to govern the entire world.  In short, they see the Kingdom of Christ as nothing more than this present entire planet being ruled under the Old Testament Law.  (shuddering in my seat at the thoiught) 

As for what parts of OT Law the Christian Reconstructionists would want to follow, it was certainly not the whole of OT Law. Certainly not animal sacrifices. BTW, it's the standard dispensational pre-mill view that animal sacrifices will be reinstituted during the Millennium. So maybe some shuddering is in order for them.

It has been common among Christians to divide the OT Law into moral, ceremonial, and civil parts. Saying that we should follow the OT's moral law does not usually cause a lot of controversy. And saying that the OT's ceremonial law has been fulfilled or otherwise done away with is not too controversial, either. Where the controversy really starts is when the CRs say that some of the OT's civil law continues into the New Covenant era.

If you have problems with OT civil law, you have my sympathy. I am not too excited about the idea of slavery as a punishment for indebtedness, for example.

But the CRs asked a question that deserves an answer: If you want to reject OT civil law, what is our standard for civil law now? Do we follow the Christian socialism of Ron Sider, Tony Campolo, and Jim Wallis? Or some secular theory of government? Or something else? Dispensationalism does not offer much of an answer to this question.

[MidnightRider]

Dominion-ism is the umbrella theology that asserts that Christians are to dominate and take control of the world in all areas: politics, civil government, finances, moral rule, worship, etc.  That alone is aberrant theology when compared with Romans 12.

Under this dominion-ism theology are sub-classifications, including both Christian reconstructionism (bringing back the OT Law) and Kingdom Now (making the present earth the literal Kingdom of Christ).

The Emerging Church is the same as the Emergent Church.  Some like to say emerging because they see themselves as fluid as the culture and are always emerging from within that ever-changing culture.  Some like to say emergent because they are an outgrowth of the culture while being part of it.  But they are one and the same movement.

Dominion-ism theology is linked to the Emerging Church in so much as the published emerging "leadership" like McLaren and Sweet have declared that there is no future millennial reign of Christ and that God expects the church to transform this present planet into His ultimate kingdom.  Since they have renounced a belief in Hell it is a fair assumption that they think this present planet will also become the future paradise, which is the ultimate in dominion-ism theology.

I keep wondering whom you are talking about. Maybe an example that hits close to home would help. One could argue that there is an "umbrella theology" called "apocalypticism" that includes the evangelical dispensational pre-millennialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mayan-calendar-2012-is-the-end folks. Then the Jehovah's Witnesses are "linked" to the dispy pre-mills in that both think the world is going to be destroyed.

But so what? These groups don't derive their views from each other. They don't hang out together. They don't get their ideas from a common source. Their similarities are superficial.

Likewise with the Christian Reconstructionists and the Emerging/Emergent church movement. How could the Emergents be a non-doctrinal movement that is simultaneously following the Christian Reconstructionists with their strict Calvinism and desire to follow OT Law? (That is a rhetorical question. They couldn't.)

My point is that if you want to make an argument about one group by associating it with another group, you really need more than a subjective impression that they are similar in some superficial way.

Of course, I believe that there is a future millennial reign coming when Christ literally returns.  After those 1000 years, the earth will be incinerated along with the rest of the universe and Christ will create a new heavens and a new earth and place His throne in a new city called New Jerusalem, and He will literally dwell with His transformed creatures for eternity.  Dominionists hate to hear that version of the end times, but I believe it to be true.

There have been lots of Bible-believing Christians who have rejected the dispensational view of the millennial reign of Christ. Of course, there are liberals and non-Christians who reject that view, too. But they reject it for different reasons. So it is misguided to lump together everyone who rejects that view.

[EverAStudent]

As for what parts of OT Law the Christian Reconstructionists would want to follow, it was certainly not the whole of OT Law.

The settlers of mainland USA (i.e. the Pilgrims) tried to implement what "made sense" from the civil law elements of the OT Law before the experiment proved too onerous.  They experimented with things like obligatory meetings, turning Sunday into "the Sabbath," applying usery laws, slave laws (not anti-slave but rather how-to-do-slavery-right), pay back 3 times what you stole, etc.

Their problem was that the OT model of government was initially rule-by-prophets, a true theocracy, then rule by judges, then rule by king (which God allowed but detested).  Even the OT Law period had different "dispensations."  Ultimately the Pilgrims rejected the idea of a king (having suffered mortal persecution under the King of England), and they rejected a theocracy (having been almost exterminated by Germany's Holy Roman Empire theocracy.  They struggled, but soon many of the early colonies settled on representative government, and most quickly began rejecting ecclessiastical controls on the population, choosing to separate the rule of church from the rule of government.  Very wise.  Reconstructionists, like all domionists, desire to create some form of theocracy meaning that everyone in the nation is subject to the church leadership.  Domionism.  ---still shuddering---

How "should" one use the Bible if one gets the chance to develop their own form of government and civil law?  Start wth Romans 12 (the form of goverment is less important that the existance of it), and follow the principles of the Law of Christ.  The NT calls for Christians to behave morally but only a few immoral behaviors are actually considered "criminal" in the NT.  For example, adultery is immoral and the church may act against adultery, but only on its own membership, the NT does not call for a civil-criminal punishment against all adulterers (unlike the OT, which did call for a criminal punishment on all adulterers).  There is just no need to implement the OT Law when the Law of Christ provides such guidance.

One could argue that there is an "umbrella theology" called "apocalypticism" that includes the evangelical dispensational pre-millennialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mayan-calendar-2012-is-the-end folks. Then the Jehovah's Witnesses are "linked" to the dispy pre-mills in that both think the world is going to be destroyed.

But so what? These groups don't derive their views from each other. They don't hang out together. They don't get their ideas from a common source. Their similarities are superficial.

Likewise with the Christian Reconstructionists and the Emerging/Emergent church movement. How could the Emergents be a non-doctrinal movement that is simultaneously following the Christian Reconstructionists with their strict Calvinism and desire to follow OT Law? (That is a rhetorical question. They couldn't.)

My point is that if you want to make an argument about one group by associating it with another group, you really need more than a subjective impression that they are similar in some superficial way.

I am not at all grasping what the point is here.  Are you saying that neither the Emerging Church nor the Jehovah's Witnesses are domionists?  Both movements have published that this is their general belief system, and in fact, they use the same passages of Scripture to argue for their shared viewpoint.  Both expect this present Earth to be molded into the eternal paradise, and both groups are working toward that end, though they are led by different administrative heads.

If perhaps it is your point to state that two distinct religious sects cannot share a common doctrine, then I would ask you to reconsider.  Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelical Christians share the doctrine of water baptism, do they not?  The observation that both the Emerging Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are domionists was to illustrate how the doctrine is being applied by real and vital religious organizations, not in theory, but in practice.  

There have been lots of Bible-believing Christians who have rejected the dispensational view of the millennial reign of Christ. Of course, there are liberals and non-Christians who reject that view, too. But they reject it for different reasons. So it is misguided to lump together everyone who rejects that view.

Again, I am not sure what point is being attempted here.  I believe in a coming 1000 years where Christ bodily reigns from Jerusalem.  Some peole do not believe this. Are you trying to say everyone should believe one way or the other, or that no one should believe this way?  

[MidnightRider]

This post is about the relationship between the Emerging Church and the Christian Reconstruction movements. Anyone not interested, please feel free to go to the next message.  

I did not know much about the Emerging Church movement, but I looked around on the web and think I found out enough. Its most visible face, Brian McLaren, is part of the evangelical left-wing along with Ron Sider and Jim Wallis. They all work on Sojourners magazine (McLaren is chairman of the board, Wallis editor-in-chief, Sider a longtime writer). They support Christian "social justice" ideas that you find on the far left of American politics, with some Scripture verses sprinkled in.

How close are they to the Christian Reconstructionists? Not very. CR author Gary North debated Sider on Biblical solutions to poverty in the early 1980s. Some of you might be old enough to remember how trendy Sider's book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger was back then. North also financed David Chilton's response Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. As far as I know, it was the only book-length reply to Sider from a Biblical and freedom-oriented viewpoint. You can read the whole book for free at http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/21b6_47e.htm .

North did write an essay "Ron Sider Has Moved in the Right Direction" http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet97.10.htm which summarizes the history of the conflict. Sider moved in the right direction, but not nearly far enough.

North advocated Biblical law. Sider did not. North advocated individual freedom and free markets. Sider didn't in 1977, though by 1997 he was more of a slightly left-of-center Democrat. I am not sure how sincere his shift was - nowadays he is supporting Obama's health insurance plan, for example.

But the far-left version of Sider's theology carried on through Tony Campolo, Wallis, and now McClaren. And by that I don't mean that I think there is some superficial idea that they seem to have in common. I mean that they work together, endorse each others viewpoints, teach the same stuff.

McLaren does indeed reject the dispensational view of prophecy. (For example, in this interview http://www.precipicemagazine.com/brian-mclaren-interview.htm )  But he immediately uses it as a jumping-off point to his favorite issues of environmentalism, "social justice", and so forth. And with McLaren downplaying Biblical hermeneutics anyway, I am not sure why he would be excited about re-interpreting Biblical eschatology. For the Christian Reconstructionists, their rejection of dispensational premillennialism was exegetical.

That's why I disagree that there is a "link" between the Christian Reconstructionists and the Emerging Church.

[LucyB]

GC is more akin to the Shepherding Movement than much else.

I have seen several posts that compare GCx to the "shepherding movement." I agree that there are similarities, but I find it hard to believe that the hyper-charismatic group from Fort Lauderdale (Bob Mumford et al.) had any direct influence on the GCx movement or vise versa. Does anyone know of any links between the two movements. I know there were many small charismatic groups that were severely damaged by the influence of the Fort Lauderdale bunch. In the aftermath of the Jesus movement of the 1970's, rebellious and disillusioned young people were looking for a shepherd, and adapted easily to groups with authoritarian and abusive leadership; but it seems as if GCx came up with their own ideas independently of the other groups.  Does anyone know of any direct connection between GC and the shepherding movement, such as Rick Whitney recommending a book by Derek Prince or something like that?

 

[EverAStudent]

Hi LucyB.  Just in case I confused you, I was not asserting that Jim McCotter was trained by those who popularized the shepherding movement, I was saying that a GC church is akin to a shepherding movement church, that is, that they seem to have similar core doctrines and beliefs regarding the treatment of the saints.  GC churches look more like shepherding movement churches than any other model that comes to mind.  They used to enjoy saying that they looked like Plymouth Brethren churches, but that comparison did not really hold up well.

Perhaps referring to GC churches being like the Single Purpose Church model would be more advisable?  http://craigwbooth.xanga.com/722119376/the-single-purpose-church/

[LucyB]

Thanks for your response, EAS, and that is an excellent article. I warns about many of the problems associated with the GC that are separate from the authoritarian leadership issues. I understood what you were saying, and I think that is exactly what Larry Pile was saying in his article, as well. The Wikipedia article on the shepherding movement says that GC "was influenced by the shepherding movement." They reference Larry Pile's article, but Pile's article does not say that GC was influenced in any way by the shepherding movement, just that they have similar characteristics. It seems the phenomenon was bigger than any one group or movement, and sprang up as several movements simultaneously in the early to mid 1970's. The Fort Lauderdale group and the GCx group may have been the biggest and most influential of these groups.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_Movement

http://gcxweb.org/Misc/LarryPile-OtherSideOfDiscipleship.aspx