One may be an Amillennialist with no expectation of
chiliastic-millennial triumph in this age and yet embrace Dominionism with its
insistence on a Kingdom definition that includes the culture. The
Dominion-Amillennialist may not have the triumphal expectation of the
Postmillennialist but they both share a common interest in transforming
culture. They may disagree when it comes to style, nomenclature, emphasis and
even what 'victory' looks like but they share a mutual interest and thus
practically speaking are allies.
The more hard-line varieties of Dominion Theology will rail
against the faculty and theology associated with Westminster Seminary in
California and decry their Amillennial Two
Kingdoms doctrine and yet a closer examination reveals the practical
differences are minimal. The real disagreements are to what extent the Church's
'stamp' on culture is to be institutionalised and questions over reliance upon
Old Testament forms and jurisprudence. It's largely a pseudo-intramural debate.
In reality they're cut from the same cloth which in America results in
Right-wing nationalism and free market policies, something both camps largely
assume. Despite their rejection of the verbiage, Westminster in fact advocates
the transformation of culture, they just don't believe it should be done in
concert with the institution of the Church. Or to put it another way, for them
Christ's Kingdom still extends to the larger culture. The disagreement is to
what degree this finds a functional and institutional overlap with the Church.
Even modern Premillennialism has been affected by this
thinking. Dallas Theological Seminary, the flagship school of American
Dispensationalism explicitly rejects the old mindset of Fundamentalism best
represented by J Vernon McGee's famous dictum that 'you don't polish brass on a
sinking ship'. In other words, this world is doomed and it's something of a
waste of time to try and repair its institutions. This sentiment expressed by
McGee is regularly cited and excoriated and yet I would argue McGee was hardly
consistent. His teachings are riddled with commentary on American society and
politics. He had an express opinion and it wasn't that of a prophetic critic or
merely disinterested observer. Rather his commentary has often struck me as
partisan and explicitly conservative.
Today, Dallas Theological Seminary in many ways embodies the
shift from the older Fundamentalism to the Evangelicalism of the post-war
period. Dispensationalism changed in the mid-20th century and right
around the same time many adherents of that school began to take what might be
described as a pro-active cultural and political role. For many this was
probably rooted more in American patriotism and nationalism and angst over
Communism than it was Dominionist thought and yet by the 1990's the full
intellectual transformation had come to fruition. The era of the Culture Wars
drove many to seek a more comprehensive and coherent way of thinking, a
full-orbed philosophy that would allow them to develop 'Christian' ways of
approaching the various facets and battlegrounds of society. Christian
'worldview' teaching took over, itself a re-packaging of the old doctrine of
Dominionism. Again the thought of Abraham Kuyper and figures like Francis
Schaeffer played a prominent role. This would be accentuated by the efforts of Charles
Colson and others who sought to forge an alliance with Rome in order to wage
this great battle against secularism. No one saw it coming, the Ecumenical
Movement's greatest success came not through the liberalising of the theology
but through the theology of Dominion. It was on this basis that Evangelicalism
began the transformation that by the 2000's would lead many Evangelicals to
view Roman Catholics as brethren and sharers of a common 'worldview'.
Not all fully accepted this move and there has been an
endless stream of commentary and debate which continues to this day. And yet
the debates are not over the principle of Dominionism (which is assumed) but
over the means, extent and expectation. Many have become voices of caution
warning against the excesses of the doctrine when wed to nationalism, a political
party or a specific agenda point. Some have focused on the concord with Rome
and issues regarding Justification, and yet few would dare to question the
doctrine of Dominionism itself. Even fewer will listen when told that the
doctrine is toxic to the gospel and is contrary to what the New Testament teaches
regarding the Kingdom. Iain Murray (himself inconsistent on this point) was not
heard when he warned that the Church's great enemy isn't secularism but false
teaching and a false gospel. Evangelicalism
Divided written in the year 2000 was by my estimation his best work and yet
its lessons have not been heeded.
It is only an Apocalyptic mindset that is able to free the
Church from these distractions and corruptions, from these attempts to
synthesize Biblical doctrine with the thoughts, philosophies and aspirations of
the world. Dominionism rests not on exegesis of any New Testament text but
instead is the fruit of philosophical inquiry laid upon the text. Questions are
asked and issues are inferred which have no basis in New Testament thought.
Inquiries with regard to power, politics and money drive them and these result
in further corollary inquiries in order to flesh out the largely contrived system.
The Scriptures are either silent or explicitly teach positions contrary to
their aspirations. Why do they ask them? The implications of New Testament
Christianity are for many unthinkable, unimaginable. The cost is too great and
frankly many are unwilling to follow through, bear the cross and the shame. New
Testament doctrine and ethics are foolish in the eyes of the world, a call to
shame, poverty and in many cases humiliation. The New Testament repeatedly
warns us of those who will not submit to this doctrine and yet will enter the
Church and corrupt it. The enemies of the Church are not found merely in
theologically liberal circles or in the garish showmen on television. No, many
are quite conservative and ostensibly Biblical in their teaching and yet even
while upholding many truths they have nevertheless injected a lethal poison
into the Church and their corruptions are today's Protestant orthodoxy.
Christianity is transformed into something that is by the
world's standards, triumphant. Paul called it thinking godliness is gain. Add
to this the fact that the waters are muddied, true Biblical Doctrine is cherry
picked, manipulated and filtered in order to make it cohere with a larger
philosophical system.... they call it Christian Worldview, but it is anything
but.
Apocalypticism rejects this and remains focused of Christ and
the cross, the Kingdom He preached, the Kingdom not of this world. Often the
position is decried as 'merely seeking to save a few souls before the Rapture'.
Well, most Rapture-ites don't hold with that anymore. Most have embraced some form
of Dominionist thought. We could say 'saving souls before the Second Coming' as
opposed to the Rapture to clean up the statement but even this is a bit
misinformed. But I'm afraid the larger full-orbed answer will not satisfy the
Dominionist either.
Yes, we're here to save souls before the end, a concern and
imperative expressed by Peter near the end of Second Epistle, one that frames
this age of delay. But additionally and primarily we are here to glorify God by
bearing witness, by being martyrs. We are ambassadors and we are soldiers. But
the war we fight is not with carnal weapons made of steel. We fight a spiritual
war that the world cannot even see or comprehend. We are called to be more than
conquerors... by cultural and geopolitical conquest? Nay, by glorifying God as
sheep sent to the slaughter. We resist the world and like Christ in the
temptation we reject what it has and what it offers. We are called to take up
the cross, something Establishment friendly middle class people will never
grasp or understand. This is not our home and yet many have fallen prey to the
wiles of the world and its myriad charms. While seeking to glorify God and
expand the Kingdom through power they instead succumb to Satan's offer and seek
not the Kingdom that is eternal but the kingdoms of this world. The riches and
cares of this world are the weeds which choke them and many will not persevere
or will 'sell out' for the world's security, respect and accolade. They have
fallen into the trap of Babel but believe they are building Zion. At best they
build a Babel-tower topped by a golden cross, the very counterfeit Kingdom we
are warned of.
Apocalypticism is often accused and/or associated with
millenarianism. One thinks of doomsday cults and the like that are often trying
to usher in the golden age or millennium. They have from time to time been
involved in some form of social or political upheaval in which they see
themselves in the role of catalyst, the instigating force that will bring about
the crisis and climax.
This of course is antithetical to both Early Church Apocalypticism
as well as what is being advocated here. It would be more proper to refer to what
we're saying as Eschatological Apocalypticism or Amillennial Apocalypticism but
of course these pairings are too awkward, too much for the tongue. What is
essential is to emphasize the coming of Christ and thus how we understand
Kingdom life in this age.
It is doubtful whether or not such a term could 'catch on' as
there is so much confusion with regard to eschatology and millennial positions.
I have attended churches in which Amillennialism is being critiqued and yet in
every case it's clear the speaker did not understand the position. I meet many
Amillennialists and upon such a discovery an almost immediate kindredship
develops and yet all too often this is later clouded by the realisation that we
hold to two very different and divergent forms of Amillennialism.
In his writings Meredith Kline attempted to point out that
there should be a kindred spirit between the Pre- and A-millennial positions.
Though the former is chiliastic their relegation of the golden age to after
Christ's return means that in This Age (at least) we can or should have a common ethos and mindset. He said this
specifically in his countering and critique of Postmillennial theology,
particularly that of the Theonomic stripe. He's right and yet sadly most
Premillennialists have abandoned the ethical and applicative aspects of their
theology and even Kline for all his wisdom in navigating the doctrine of the
Kingdom nevertheless retained many aspects of Kuyperian thought.
In the end, this is but one of several issues in which there
is confusion and the teachers of our day have done little to help clarify the
matter. Indeed many seem incapable of parsing out the nuances and determining
the actual causes of division and confusion. Many of the debates surrounding
Two Kingdom theology are spurious and artificial. The dividing point is one's
stand on Dominion. If one holds to Dominionist thought whether extreme (as in
the case of Theonomy) or semi-pluralistic (as in the case of Kuyper) one has
still crossed the line, re-defined the Biblical doctrine of the Kingdom and has
laid the Church wide open to syncretistic philosophical inquiry and doctrine.
Amillennialism and Premillennialism that embrace Dominionist categories may
theoretically retain their chronological schemes but in practical terms they have
become Postmillennialists.
Apocalypticism as defined here seeks to re-cast the debate,
re-frame the issues and perhaps will grant some clarity and focus. While I
vociferously reject the Dispensational scheme there are times I find more
common cause with old Fundamentalist preachers talking about 'this world' than
I would listening to a Reformed or Evangelical pulpit espousing the erroneous 'every
square inch' dictums of Abraham Kuyper. And yet it is very rare these days as
the Kuyper-Schaeffer model has all but triumphed and its rejection has become
tantamount to heresy.
As I have repeatedly stated a new Reformation is needed and
desperately. This is but one area that needs re-examination and
reconsideration.