The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his094/kingdm3a.arj/KINGDM3A.TXT

Text File | 1991-01-19 | 45.4 KB | 805 lines

Article taken from:
Media Spotlight Vol 8. - NO.1
P.O. Box 1288
Costa Mesa, CA 92628


                               KINGDOM THEOLOGY

                             PART III - Section A
                             --------------------

                             By Albert James Dager

                                 INTRODUCTION

    This segment of our treatise on "Kingdom Now" or "Dominion" Theology has
been the most difficult to complete, both in terms of assimilating the
contents and in presenting them in a manner that would not be inflammatory or
denigrating to any individual's character.  Just getting from the research to
the writing has been extremely difficult and time-consuming in view of the
mounds of documentation that I've had to read and reread, or listen to on
audio and video tapes over and over in order to avoid the mistake of judging
erroneously or taking statements out of context.  The importance of the
subject matter warranted extreme caution.

    I hope the reader will understand my struggle to get this written.  And I
thank for their patience those who have waited so long for this third
installment.

                                 Looking Back

    In our previous installments we traced today's Dominion Theology back to
the neo-Pentecostalism of the mid-twentieth century, and what became known as
"The Latter Rain Movement."  We discussed the influence of occult methodology
upon the two principal innovators of that movement:  Franklin Hall and
William Branham.  Their influence at that time upon certain pastors and
leaders resulted in widespread acceptance of teachings centered on the
supposed "restoration" of the Church.

    Perhaps more than anyone else, it was William Branham's influence that
paved the way for this new theology based on the exaltation of the believer.
This engendered a new hope unknown to Scripture:  that as certain
"overcomers" in the Church attained a state of perfection, or sinlessness,
they would become immortal even while in their present bodies.  This, then,
became the basis for the belief that, through the perfecting of the
overcomers by obedience to the latter day "apostles" and "prophets," the
Church will take dominion over the governments and social institutions of the
world.  Thus the earth will be prepared for Christ's return.

    These teachings found their greatest expression in the Manifested Sons of
God and related movements.  They have lately become more widespread so that
many in the Church today believe it is not possible for Jesus to return until
the Church has made the earth 'its' footstool.

    In addressing these aberrant teachings we also explored other doctrines
peculiar to Kingdom Now Theology, and we saw how each has its own place in
the attempt to establish God's Kingdom on earth before Jesus' return.  We
also examined the various movements that hold many or all of the Kingdom Now
doctrines.

    In this, Part III, we'll detail some of the key teachings of Dominion
Theology, and we'll quote some of those who teach them.  It is beyond the
scope of this writing to quote everyone who holds each doctrine, but we will
offer a sampling from a few teachers whose statements typically reflect these
doctrines.  Wherever possible we will identify the movements to which these
teachers belong, although many do not overtly identify themselves with any
particular group.

    The reader should keep in mind that Dominion Theology is not an easily
delineated segment within the Church, but rather a loose networking of
autonomous sub-movements that have different approaches to their attempts at
establishing the Kingdom of God.  The central doctrine of all, however, is
that Jesus cannot or will not return to the earth until the Church has taken
control of at least a significant portion of human government and social
institutions.

    Whether this incorporates belief in a worldwide theocracy, or theonomy,
or the subjugation of individual secular states to the authority of the
Church depends upon the particular brand of Dominion Theology one holds.
Whether the Lord will return immediately after the Church has taken control
or after it has been in control for some time up to and including the end of
the Millennium, is likewise dependent upon individual beliefs.

    Again, not all who espouse these teachings overtly identify themselves
with any segment within Dominion Theology.  Yet each of these teachings is
peculiar to Dominion Theology and contrary to sound, biblical exegesis.  So,
while some dominion teachers stress some teachings over others, they are all
propagating errors that are leaving the Body of Christ open to great
deception.

    Whether or not these teachers propagate the full gamut of Dominion
Theology is not as important as the fact that they have adopted these
unscriptural beliefs and are spreading them throughout the Church by way of
the mass communications media and special pastors' conferences which subtly
educate Christian leaders to the heretical doctrines of Dominion Theology.
We should therefore be cautious of what we hear from these people.

                            Does It Really Matter?

    Some might question if it's really important whether someone believes
that Jesus will not return until the Church has taken dominion over the
earth.  This is a legitimate question to which I must respond that, in terms
of salvation and spiritual growth overall, it isn't important.  I have
friends who hold a post-millennialist viewpoint and I count them as brethren
in Christ.

I welcome fellowship with them and we engage in honest (and
spirited) dialogue in a spirit of love.  Perhaps the reason we get along so
well is that we are willing to listen to each others' viewpoints and
recognize that there are strong and weak arguments on all sides of the
issues.  A postmillennialist stance doesn't necessarily mean a desire for
world domination.  And they are not so closed-minded to the possibility that
the world cannot survive much longer unless the Lord does intervene with His
personal presence.

    No, the problem doesn't lie in the basic tenets of the faith.  We will
find that many dominion proponents agree with us on the essential doctrines
involving the natures of God, man, and Satan, as well as salvation through
the shed blood of Jesus, etc.  It does appear, however, that some -
particularly in the "Word-faith Movement" among charismatics - are straying
from sound doctrine in some of these areas of late.

    The basic problems with dominion teaching lie more in the realm of Church
life and the authoritarian structure necessary to implement and maintain a
dominion mindset.  This is evidenced by cultish tendencies that rob
individual believers of a true understanding of their personal relationship
with the Father.  It requires that nothing of a spiritual (and often
material) nature be undertaken without the approval of one's "covering."

    There are also dangers in the elitist mentality that naturally progresses
from the idea that somehow, due to God's grace or one's own sense of
righteousness, human life apart from those numbered among the elite becomes
cheap.

    An additional problem is that followers of Dominion Theology are easy
prey for political extremists.  There are those who play upon the concerns of
all Christians who naturally desire to see eradicated such evils as abortion,
pornography, child abuse, drug dealing, and crime in general.  The fact that
many in the "Christian right" are already united with Sun Myung Moon and the
Mormon Church, is sufficient reason to suspect that, in the long run, no
theocentric form of government will reflect the true biblical pattern for
society.

    Morality and righteousness are wonderful traits when manifested as a
result of Spirit-filled living.  When manifested as a result of religious
fervor (the "good" portion of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), these
traits become precursors to a totalitarian state.  We would do well to take a
lesson from history and remember that Hitler made his plea for acceptance of
Nazism based upon a platform of anti-communism, anti-homosexuality,
patriotism, amd morality.  Many German Christians rejoiced when he assumed
power.

    In light of these dangers we must identify the sources of Domnion
Theology so that the Body of Christ may at least be cautious of involvement.
Naturally, if someone desires to believe in Dominion Theology that is their
business.  When they teach it publicly, it becomes everybody's business and
they should be willing to have their teachings exposed to testing by the Word
of God.

    Now, in order to do justice to this very complex subject, it is necessary
that we name names.  Some will find this distasteful and will perceive it as
a personal attack against men and women of God with whom I disagree.  On the
contrary, it is my position that we must be careful not to condemn those who
are caught up in this modern heresy, but we should lift them in prayer,
recognizing that God's grace is extended to all.

    Some dominion proponents may be deceivers engaged in a power struggle for
personal gain.  Some may also have designs on leading the Church into areas
of compromise with political extremists on the right.  But I believe some are
brethren in Christ who sincerely perceive that they have a biblical mandate
to bring the world systems under the control of the Church.

    It would be a mistake to look upon all such people as our enemies just
because they hold a different eschatological viewpoint.  Granted, the
dominion viewpoint is dangerous in many of its implications.  But let's not
think there is nothing we can learn from them.  As with all spiritual matters
the truth lies somewhere between two extremes.  There are problems with the
dispensationalist point of view that the Church has ignored for too long,
thus creating an atmosphere of credibility for Kingom Now Theology.

    If, in our zeal to "expose" those in error, we obtain a certain amount of
glee in discovering their feet of clay, we'd best take heed to ourselves and
question whether our motive is really based upon love.  We may rightly quote
Jude 3 as justification for earnestly contending for the faith, but if we
forget I Corinthians 13 we are no more free from error than those whose
errors we expose.

                             THE DOMINION CONCEPT

    The concept of "dominion" as it applies to Kingdom Now Theology holds
that Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken control of
the earth's governments and social institutions.  The following are among the
more visible proponents of that belief:

    EARL PAULK (Pastor of Chapel Hill Harvester Church in Atlanta, Georgia):
    In Paulk's own publication he is touted as a "prophet" of today's Kingdom
Message:

        "If there is a prophet today who speaks the truth God wants His
    Church to hear, it is Earl Paulk.  He is the leading voice today in
    preaching the message of the Kingdom of God...a man driven compulsively
    to show this generation that God is waiting for us to do something that
    will bring Christ back to earth."1

    Paulk, himself has stated:

        "Christ in us must take dominion over the earth...The next move of
    God cannot occur until Christ in us takes dominion."2

        "The next move of God will unite His Son in marriage.  The marriage
    supper of the Lamb, the completion of establishing the Kingdom, the
    eternal rule of God, will finally take place."3

    We see that Paulk believes the Marriage Supper of the Lamb cannot take
place until after the Church ("Christ in us") has taken dominion.  But does
Paulk mean that Jesus will already have returned and been with us in order
for us to have taken dominion?  No he doesn't.  Otherwise he would not have
used the term "Christ in us."  In its proper biblical context that is a valid
term.  But in this case its use implies that Jesus will take dominion through
the Church while He remains in Heaven.

    The office of Christ cannot be separated from the person of Jesus.  He is
the 'only' Christ of God.  It is Jesus, when He returns, who must take
dominion and establish the visible Kigdom of God on earth, not "Christ in
us."  But does Paulk understand this, or are his statements nothing more than
poor choices of words?  Let's see what else he has to say:

         "Christ was one person, limited to ministry in only one place at a
    time.  In order to minister as an omnipresent Spirit, Jesus relinquished
    His fleshly dimension with its limitations of time and place.  He entered
    a higher realm of restoration and love by becoming an indwelling Spirit."4

    Either Paulk's Christology has taken an aberrant turn, or he's had a
mental lapse.  Now, I've often heard people, in one breath, address their
prayers to the Father, and, without breaking continuity, address Jesus as if
He and the Father are the same person - a "Jesus only" mental glitch.  I can
understand that mistake.  However, when someone 'publishes' a statement that
equates Jesus with the Holy Spirit, I would think that takes more mental
affirmation.

    It isn't that Christ 'was' one person, He 'is' one person - Jesus.  When
the Scripture says, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27), it
in essence affirms that we are united with Him by the Spirit of God.  He is
"in us," and we are "in Him."  It does not mean that He relinquished His
fleshly dimension to become "an indwelling Spirit."  He is, and always will
be, "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).  He is in a specific location, Heaven,
seated at the right hand of the Father.  (Yes, I'm sure He gets up and moves
about.)  He is in His resurrected 'body,' limited to place if not to time.

    The Holy Spirit - the Third Person of the Trinity - is omnipresent.  It
is 'He,' not the person of Jesus, who is the indwelling Spirit of all who
truly believe in Jesus.

    This is more relevant to our study than may first appear.  For without a
proper Christology one cannot have a proper eschatology.  In this case, Paulk
sees Jesus as "an indwelling Spirit."  On this basis he claims that the
Church is the "ongoing incarnation of Christ."  In that case, the church is
now Christ, and all Scriptures pertaining to Christ's ruling on earth are
really referring to the Church.

    We'll deal with this in more detail in another chapter.  For now, let's
consider Paulk's views on dominion.

        "When the apostles asked Jesus if He would now restore the political
    kingdom, He said, 'It's not for you to know the times or the seasons.
    But I will tell you what will take place in your life, and when you have
    received what I'll tell you about, you will be able to bring in the
    Kingdom of God.'

        "How will the Kingdom of God be ushered in?  In Acts 1:8, Jesus said,
    'But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you;
    and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,
    and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the Earth.'"5

    Notice how Paulk puts words in Jesus' mouth by having Him say, "you will
be able to bring in the [political] Kingdom of God."  Nowhere in Scripture is
such a statement found.

    Evidently the first-century Church did not have enough "faith" or
maturity to accomplish this feat, so it is up to today's Christians to do the
job.

        "What are we waiting for?  Why is Jesus waiting in heaven at the
    right hand of the Father?  Who is He waiting for?  He is waiting for you
    and me to become mature, for the Bride of Christ to become mature, so
    that He can come again.  Did you know that God has done everything He can
    do?  If anything else is going to be done, we're going to do it."6

        "In Matthew 24:14, Jesus clearly says that He cannot return for His
    Bride until she has demonstrated the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the
    nations of the earth.  Until the church can demonstrate the alternative
    Kingdom, Jesus cannot come again.  God no longer has the authority to
    send Christ back to earth, because He will not circumvent His eternal
    plan.

    While no man knows the day or the hour, I can say with the
    authority of God that CHRIST CANNOT AND WILL NOT COME BACK UNTIL WE HAVE
    DEMONSTRATED THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM TO THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH.  That
    task demands a mature church, which will have become an alternative to
    the kingdoms of the world.  THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH IS ALL ABOUT AND
    JESUS CHRIST'S RETURN IS UP TO US."7  [Emphasis Paulk's.]

    If we read Paulk's statement closely, we'll see that he believes God no
longer has the authority to send Christ back to earth, but that "Christ's
return is up to us."  So, God has taken control out of His own hands and
placed it into ours.

    Now, it's true that "He will not circumvent His eternal plan."  But He
has revealed in His Word the manner in which He will accomplish His eternal
plan.  Contrary to Paulk, God's eternal plan is not that the Church will take
dominion on its own, but merely that the earth will be redeemed.  Many of the
details of that redemption have not been revealed, but in order for the
dominion concept to apply, one must spiritualize what he believes the Word
says rather than take it literally.  What it does say is that God's plan of
redemption includes Jesus' return to establish the visible Kingdom before the
creation of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20:2-21:5).

    Paulk has misread God's eternal plan by spiritualizing Matthew 24:14,
which simply states, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all
the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

    It's one thing to preach the gospel of the kingdom; it's quite another
thing to institute - or demonstrate - the kingdom.  There is only one Gospel:
the Gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.  Within that Gospel is
the "gospel" (good news) that Christ is coming again to establish His visible
earthly reign.  That is the "gospel of the kingdom" we are commanded to
preach, not this counterfeit Dominion Theology which exalts man above what
God intended.

    GARY NORTH (Reconstructionist author and publisher):

        "The eschatology of dominion has once again revived, as it has not
    since the period of the American Revolution....This is not the end of the
    world.  The Church is not about to be raptured.  The humanists,
    occultists, and New Agers are about to see their world ruptured.  This
    process could be delayed by God's external judgment on the West, but it
    cannot be delayed until Christ's return in final judgment.  It will
    happen long before Christ returns in glory."8

    North is among the most visible Reconstructionists and is, in his words,
"one of the two primary publishers of dominion theology"9 (Dominion Press,
Tyler Texas).  It is North's belief that David Chilton's 'Paradise Restored '
is the most definitive, virtually irrefutable, book on dominion eschatology"

        "Dominion theology is the wave of the future.  David Chilton has
    written the two primary eschatological manifestos of dominion theology.
    Whoever comes after him will inevitably be labeled a 'me, too'
    postmillennialist.  Chilton has established the terms of the debate over
    eschatology for the next hundred years, at the very least."10

    This is quite a claim.  Obviously North is convinced that no one will be
able to challenge Chilton's dominion eschatology in our lifetime.  But the
question is, if it can be challenged at all - one hundred years, or one
thousand years from now - why must we accept it today?  Had North said that
Chilton has established the terms of the debate once and for all, I'd be
impressed.  Better for his position had he not qualified it.

    As much as some don't like to admit it, there is a debate going on.  The
Reconstructionists comprise the intellectual arm of Dominion Theology, being
more grounded in the study of theology than are their charismatic
counterparts.  As such, the Reconstructionists' arguments are the most
viable.  And since one of the major publishers of Dominion Theology has
established that David Chilton is 'the' voice for dominion eschatology, this
writing would be incomplete without noting Chilton's position on dominion.

     DAVID CHILTON (Reconstructionist author):  Quoting Matthew 5:13-16,
Chilton says:

         "This is nothing less than a mandate for the complete social
     transformation of the entire world.  And what Jesus condemns is
     'ineffectiveness', failing to change the society around us.  We are
     commanded to live in such a way that someday all men will glorify God -
     that they will become converted to the Christian faith.  The point is
     that if the Church is obedient, the people and nations of the world will
     be discipled to Christianity.  We all know that everyone 'should' be a
     Christian, that the laws and institutions of all nations 'should' follow
     the Bible's blueprints.  But the Bible tells us more than that.  The
     Bible tells us that these commands are the shape of the future.  We
     'must' change the world; and what is more, we 'shall' change the world."
     11

     Matthew 5:13-16 is hardly "a mandate for the complete social transform-
ation of the entire world."  It is a mandate, yes, but it is a mandate that
requires no more than that all Christians exhibit in their lives the reality
of their faith in Christ.  As a result of our witness many will be saved and
brought into the Kingdom of God.  But there is no mention of the social
transformation of any nation let alone the entire world.  Scripture tells us
that, when Christ returns the nations will be arrayed against Him, not
waiting to welcome Him (Revelation 16:14; 19:19).  Whether anti-Christ is a
man or a system (as proposed by dominion teachers), the fact remains that,
when Jesus returns, the world will be under the rule of anti-Christ, not
under the rule of the Church.

    What Chilton has done in spiritualizing Matthew 5:13-16 is hardly
academically honest.  In waxing eloquent for his eschatological bias he often
makes a point of accusing those with whom he disagrees of making Scripture
say what they want it to say.  Has he not done the same?

    In quoting Matthew 28:19-20, Chilton goes against another of his own
rules in assuming that nations, not just people, are to be discipled:

         "The Great Commission to the Church does not end with simply
    'witnessing' to the nations.  Christ's command is that we 'disciple' the
    nations - 'all' the nations.  The kingdoms of the world are to become the
    kingdoms of Christ.  They are to be discipled, made obedient to the
    faith.

    This means that every aspect of life throughout the world is to
    be brought under the lordship of Jesus Christ:  families, individuals,
    business, science, agriculture, the arts, law, education, economics,
    phychology, philosophy, and every other sphere of human activity.
    Nothing may be left out.  Christ 'must reign, until He has put all
    enemies under His feet' (I Cor.15:25).  We have been given the responsib-
    ility of converting the entire world."12

    One point Chilton makes over and again in his book is that literalism is
secondary to consistent biblical imagery.  In this instance he goes against
his own rule.  To "disciple all the nations," or, "make disciples of [out of]
all the nations," does not mean that every nation as a whole is one day going
to sit at the feet of the Reconstructionist gurus and learn the ways of
Truth.

The Great Commission requires us to go into all the nations and
disciple "whosoever will" be saved.  Using Chilton's exegetical rule, if this
"mandate" encompasses all the nations as saved entities, it must encompass
all believers as missionaries to foreign lands.  After all, is the Lord not
speaking to each of us as individuals?

    If Chilton's reasoning is good for Matthew 28:19-20, it must be good for
Matthew 24:9:  "...ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."
Therefore, everyone in every nation will hate all Christians.  Ergo, no one
will ever be converted.

    At least Chilton does see the need for the Church to clean its own house
before attempting so grand a task as discipling the entire world.

         "...Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a 'world
    takeover' if you will; but our strategy begins with the reformation and
    reconstruction of the Church.  From that will flow social and political
    reconstruction, indeed a flowering of Christian civilization (Hag.1:1-15;
    2:6-10, 18-23."13

    Chilton correctly points out that postmillennialism has been a dominant
theme in Church history.  But it is not Scripture he uses to support that
eschatological viewpoint as much as he uses the writings of the early Church
"fathers" (Augustine, Athanasius, etc.), and some recent sources such as C.H.
Spurgeon.

But what Chilton fails to recognize is that those early Church
"fathers" were products of a religious system already sliding into apostasy.
It was the Roman Catholic Church that first attempted to take dominion over
the governments of the earth.  It succeeded to some degree, in that Western
civilization came under its control.  But in order to establish and maintain
control the Roman Church had to acquiesce to pagan cultures.  The result was
that, although the Gospel (as much as was allowed under Romanism) did bring a
measure of enlightenment, the Church itself suffered corruption and became
paganized.  This affected not only its liturgy but its doctrinal postion in
some crucial areas.

    Yet even to achieve the modicum of success it enjoyed in establishing its
compromising rule, the Roman Church had to resort to bloodshed not only
through the fomenting of wars, but through pogroms against dissenters such as
took place in the Inquisitions.

    Failing to learn from history, Chilton (an alleged historian) has also
failed to understand that there are varying points of view even among
premillennialists.  He lumps all under the mantel of "dispensationalism," and
accuses of being a defeatist anyone who doesn't hold the postmillennialist
viewpoint:

        "The eschatological issue centers on one fundamental point:  Will the
    gospel succeed in its mission, or not?  Regardless of their numerous
    individual differences, the various defeatist schools of thought are
    solidly lined up together on one major point:  'The gospel of Jesus
    Christ will fail.'  Christianity will not be successful in its worldwide
    task.  Christ's Great Commission to disciple the nations will not be
    carried out."14

        "...A good deal of modern Rapturism should be recognized for what it
    really is:  a dangerous error that is teaching God's people to expect
    defeat instead of victory."15

    I take umbrage at Chilton's lack of intellectual integrity.  It is
patently ridiculous to accuse any Christian of believing that "the gospel of
Jesus Christ will fail."  Every premillennialist I know expects victory,
including Hal Lindsey (whom Chilton takes special delight in denigrating).  I
don't agree with Lindsey on several points, but no one can accuse him - or
myself for that matter - of having a defeatist attitude.  Were that true, Hal
would not be writing books with evangelistic themes, and Media Spotlight
would not exist.

    The trouble with Reconstructionists (indeed the entire dominion mindset)
is that they don't do their homework.  Otherwise they wouldn't lump all
premillenialists into one grab-bag of escapism.

    Another problem is that they see as defeat anything less than domination
of the world system before Jesus returns.  This is not spiritual-mindedness,
but carnal-mindedness, even when based on the assumption that the
transformation of society will result from the changing of men's hearts
through the Gospel.

    We are not called to "win the world for Christ."  We are called to be
witnesses for Him.  It is the Holy Spirit that draws men to God as we share
the Word about Christ (Romans 10:17).  To think that the Church or the Holy
Spirit will have failed bacause the whole world isn't converted would be the
same as to think we've failed because every person who hears the Gospel
doesn't fall on his or her face in repentance.

    What's the difference if not everyone at a given moment is converted, or
anyone throughout history is not converted.  Somewhere, according to Dominion
Theology, the Holy Spirit has failed, or the Church has failed.

    "But," some would say, "we don't expect every person to be converted; we
just want to make sure their lives are conformed to Christian principles."
Well, if not every person is converted, we will have less than total
dominion, even if we can control their activities.  The Holy Spirit will have
failed just as He has "failed" to convert everyone who has ever lived.

    And as long as there are unconverted souls, the privilege to run society
will be challenged.  Ultimately there will be confrontation and the need to
apply force to maintain control.  Bloodshed and corruption (yes, even among
"Christians") will be an ongoing result of religious domination.

    Even if we were to succeed in converting every soul and ruling society
under God's spiritual direction, within two generations at the most, the
rebellious nature of those to be born will manifest itself.

    Without the visible, tangible presence of Jesus and His 'resurrected'
saints administering the Kingdom of God on earth, the world will be at the
mercy of arrogant, religious autocrats whose own peculiar understanding of
"God's will" will keep us under bondage.

    PAT ROBERTSON (Founder and President of Christian Broadcasting Network):
Pat Robertson is careful about revealing his belief in Dominion Theology.
Robertson believes in a literal rapture of the saints, but not until there
has been a great revival that will result in a godly society run by the
Church.

 In his keynote address to the Dallas '84 convention for Maranatha
Campus Ministries, Robertson made reference to the late John Lennon's song,
'Imagine,' in which Lennon imagined a world of peace wherein there was no
religion to engender strife.  Paraphrasing Lennon, Robertson said:

        "Imagine a world when no more little babies are slaughtered in the
    womb.
        "Imagine a world where there are no more homes torn apart because of
    alcoholism.
        "Imagine a world where there are no more young men and young women
    spaced out and glassy-eyed on account of drugs.
        "Imagine a world when there are no more crime lords selling
    prostitutes, selling pornography, selling gambling devices, selling
    drugs, and stealing from legitimate business.
        "Imagine a world where nobody hates anybody any longer, where there
    is no more fighting and no more killing.
        "Imagine a world where you can walk down the streets of the city - or
    any city - safely at any hour of the day or night wihout fear of your
    life.
        "Imagine a world where there are no more dead bolts, and chains, and
    locks, and bars over windows.
        "Imagine a world where there are no more prisons - where there's no
    more violence.
        "Imagine a world where men and women [are] married in holiness and
    godliness, and women were not being used as cheap, exploitive [sic],
    devices to satisfy the lust of men.  And imagine a world where there was
    no more perversion, and homosexuality, and lesbianism, but men and women
    functioned as God made them, where they brought up their children
    together in love, where there was no more divorce, and where little
    children knew who their mothers and fathers were.

        "Imagine a world where the Word of God was honored and people said,
    'This is the answer to life's problems.'  Hallelujah!
        "And Imagine a world where those who brought that book, and those who
    had the message of Jesus, were the honored representatives of society
    where men and women said, 'Welcome into our community; you have come with
    the Word of God.'
        "Now you say, 'That sounds like the Millennium.'  Well maybe some of
    it does, but some of it we're going to see."16

    What Robertson described is a utopian society based on peace and love.
He evidently fails to understand that no such society can exist as long as
men live in corruptible flesh.  By saying that "some of it we're going to
see," he infers that some, if not all, of these scenarios are possible in
present society.

     Yet there is not a single one that is possible given
mankind's sin nature - unless ninety-eight percent of the human population
were wiped out, leaving only conscientious Christians and some moral
unbelievers, or there was instituted a police state of greater magnitude than
that of the Soviet Union.

    Even during the Millennium, with Jesus reigning in person, there will be
those who rebel against His laws.  That is why He must rule them with a rod
of iron (Revelation 2:27).

    There cannot be, nor will there be, anything like a perfect society until
only the saints of God in their resurrected bodies occupy the earth.  That
will take place after the Millennium and during eternity in the new heaven
and new earth (Revelation 21).

    If Scripture does not promise any such society before then, what hope is
there that, under the fallible rule of supposed "overcomers," even a
substantial portion of sinful humanity will live righteously, voluntarily or
otherwise?

    Robertson's error lies in his applying to the Church certain Old
Testament Scriptures that promise the restoration of Israel out of captivity.
He also believes that there is a raising of human consciousness toward
righteousness in Christ.  That belief, based upon a Gallup Poll commissioned
by CBN, reveals a lamentable naivete for one some believe astute enough to
hold the highest office in the land:

        "George Gallup discovered that something happened in America about
    four or five years ago.  Because we said, 'We want you to go back and
    survey people and find out the difference of their attitudes today versus
    1979 about religious matters.'

        "George Gallup went to the campuses of America.  He surveyed with
    extremely accurate testing methods the attitudes of college students on
    the campuses of America.  Fifty percent of those on the college campuses
    said, 'We are more religious today than we were five years ago.'

        "Of the general population, sixty percent of the people in America
    said, 'We are more willing to accept religious solutions to life than we
    were five years ago; we are more religiously inclined than we were five
    years ago; we are looking for answers from God more than we were five
    years ago; we are turning away from science, from humanism, from
    materialism, and we're saying, 'God, you've got to have an answer'.'

        "Now that's what America told Gallup and he in turn told us.  Now
    what does that mean?  Well what it means is we are on the verge of one of
    the greatest spiritual explosions in the United States that this world
    has ever known.  That's what it means.

        "It means that millions and millions of people are open to Jesus
    Christ."17

    All Gallup's poll really means is that people in the United States are
becoming more religious.  What does religiosity have to do with Jesus?  In
fact, the religious entities enjoying the largest surge of interest are those
commonly associated with the New Age Movement.  These include the entire
spectrum of occultism from witchcraft to the human potential programs of EST,
TM, Eckankar, and Summit, to the eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism,
and even most schools of modern psychology.

    While a later poll by Gallup found that there definitely is an inrease in
the number of people in the United States who profess to be "born again,"
their answers to questions about their lifestyles revealed that their values
are just as worldly as the rest of society.18

    This is borne out by Pat Robertson's own attitude about how his CBN
Bible, 'The Book,' was advertised when it first came out in 1984:

        "At the end of September we're going to start perhaps the biggest
    advertising blitz for this particular product that's ever been put behind
    any book in history.  And we've even got guys like Bubba Smith to stand
    there and say, 'I read 'The Book'!'...And Donna Summers, and a couple of
    the stars from 'Dallas,' and one of them from 'Dynasty,' and all these
    are going to say, 'We read 'The Book'!'

        "And reading the Bible, in America, may get to be one of the most
    'in,' important things people do."19

    It seems not a little incongruous that people who represent some of the
most ungodly media productions are used by Robertson to sell Bibles in the
interest of converting society from ungodliness.

    Robertson also believes that, in this present age, the wealth of the
world will be turned over to God's people, along with the responsibility of
ruling society:

        "Somebody has got to sew some tents together, and sew some nets
    together, and get the literature together, and all the things that are
    needed to handle 400 million to a billion souls that are going to be
    saved in the next few years!  I mean, it's a staggering task and God's
    going to give it to us!  Someone has got to train the future leaders of
    this world, because God is going to put us in positions of responsib-
    ility.

        "Let me ask you this question:  Assume that the Lord took away from
    the governments of this city, this state, other states, the nation, all
    the ungodly and the sinners.  Assume they were just taken away.  What
    would happen then if He said to His people, 'Go in; it's yours'?

        "I don't know how to run a sewage system - do you?  How do you run
    these things?  What do you do with a tax policy?  What's the foreign
    policy of the United States, or of a state?  How do you handle the
    various taxes and imports and duties?  How do you run the various social
    welfare and social service operations?  What about the welfare of great
    numbers of people?  What about the major educational programs?

        "And you could go on, and on, and on, and on.  God's people have got
    to be ready for what He's going to do.  It's one thing to sit here and
    say, 'Hallelujah!  There's going to be a revival!'  But what are you
    going to do when it comes?

        "...There has to be preparation; there has got to be training.  There
    has to be a teacher corps ready to train young converts in the Lord.  If
    you want to concentrate on something while your're here, concentrate on
    the plan your're going to have for the next five years.  What's going to
    happen when all these things that we talk about take place?  We will see
    them happen!"20

    You mean there are going to be taxes in the utopian society?  And social
welfare?  Obviously Pat wasn't talking about the Millennium.  So the question
arises as to how God is going to remove the "ungodly and the sinners" to the
point where we will have a perfect society before Jesus returns.

    It should be of concern that anyone would believe that a godly society
could be established among unregenerate mankind to the degree that there
would not even be a need for prisons.  Will human nature change?  Not likely.
Evil is not only manifested outwardly through crime and immorality; it is
primarily manifested inwardly through the thoughts and intents of the heart
(Jeremiah 17:9).

    Robertson believes that revival will change the hearts of mankind to the
degree that godliness will prevail upon the whole earth.  Scripture tells us
that toward the end of this age the love of many will grow cold because sin
will abound (Matthew 24:12).

    While we know that "the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just"
(Proverbs 13:22), it is not a given that we will take over the world before
Jesus returns.  Though we may point to isolated testimonies of inheritance
from sinners, we will not inherit the earth in its totality until after we
stand before Jesus to receive our rewards for deeds done in the flesh (Romans
2:6; II Corinthians 5:10).  Yet Robertson believes that Jesus will not return
until after the Church has taken control of society and judgment has come
upon the ungodly.  In the meantime, we are to prepare ourselves to take
dominion:

        "...Now what do you do?  What do I do?  What do all of us do?  We get
ready to take dominion!  We get ready to take dominion!  It is all going to
be ours - I'm talking about all of it.  Everything that you would say is a
good part of the secular world.  Every means of communication, the news, the
television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance -
it's going to be ours!  God's going to give it to His people.  We should
prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ."21

    At this point Pat called for preparation to begin with prayer, after
which he led the Maranatha Campus Ministries Convention in a prayer for
revival as a prelude to taking dominion.

    Obviously Pat wasn't talking about the new heaven and the new earth when
he said everything that is "a good part of the secular world" would be ours.
He was speaking of taking dominion before Christ returns.  This is borne out
by his reference to the "good" part of the secular world.  There will be no
secular world in the new earth.  Nor, for all practical purposes, will there
be a secular world during the Millennium, at least in terms of government,
since the government will be administered under the direct, visible kingship
of Jesus.

    Why, if the Church is going to have dominion, Jesus would catch us up to
meet Him in the air, is unclear.  Are we just going to go up for a moment and
come right back down?  That would fit the scenario of some dominion
teachings.  If not, what will happen to society while we're absent during our
celestial vacation?  Would it be turned back over to some remnant of the
ungodly that remains?

    The inconsistencies in Robertson's eschatology are even recognized by
Gary North, one of the leading advocates of Dominion Theology.  Referring to
the effect of David Chilton's 'Paradise Restored' upon television ministers,
North says of Pat Robertson,

        "Pat Robertson was so concerned that his evangelist peers might think
    that he had switched to Chilton's version of postmillennialism that he
    wrote a personal letter to many of them (including one to me) in the
    summer of 1986 that stated that he had not adopted Chilton's theology.
    He mentioned 'Paradise Restored' specifically.  Then he outlined his own
    views, in which, as a premillennialist, he somehow completely neglected
    to mention the Great Tribulation.  That a doctrine so crucial to
    premillennial dispensationalism as the Great Tribulation could disappear
    from his theology indicates the effect that Chilton (or someone) has had
    on his thinking....

        "...The change in Pat Robertson's thinking (and the thinking of many
    premillennialists) had begun several years before 'Paradise Restored'
    appeared.  Rev. Jimmy Swaggart begins a highly critical article against
    'kingdom now' theology, including Pat Robertson's version, with a lengthy
    excerpt from a speech given by Rev. Robertson on Robert Tilton's
    Satellite Network Seminar on December 9-12, 1984.  This was several
    months before I handed Rev. Robertson a copy of 'Paradise Restored,' and
    about a month before the first edition of the book was published.  He had
    already made the switch away from traditional dispensationalism."22

        "Pat Robertson has presented a message so completely postmillennial
    in its tone that it is difficult to understand why he continues to insist
    that he is still a premillennialist.  I have never seen a public
    pronouncement of any postmillennialist that is more detailed in its
    description of a coming era of external blessings.  I know of none who
    thinks it is coming in the next few years, but Pat Robertson did, in late
    1984."23

    I have no doubt that those who believe the scenario set forth by
Robertson are sincere in their desire to see God's righteousness prevail on
earth.  But danger lies in expecting more than God's Word promises.  Jesus
said that in this world we would have tribulation; yet we are to be of good
cheer because He has already overcome the world (John 16:33).  Eventually,
when God ordains it, the earth will be ours as joint heirs with Christ.
Until then we should not try to take for ourselves what He has not ordained
for us to take.  God allows evil to exist in the world, and it will continue
to exist, if for no other reason than to test the hearts of men.  He is the
final arbiter of when evil will be done away with once and for all.

                                    Cont...