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:

(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:

Paulk, himself has stated:

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 kingdom 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:

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.

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.

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,

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.

(Reconstructionist author and publisher):

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:

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.

(Reconstructionist author):

Quoting Matthew 5:13-16, Chilton says:

Matthew 5:13-16 is hardly "a mandate for the complete social transformation 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:

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.

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 position 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 programs 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:

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 because 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.

(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:

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 naiveté for one some believe astute enough to hold the highest office in the land:

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 increase 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:

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:

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:

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,

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.

- Footnotes -

1. "Harvest Time" (Atlanta: Chapel Hill Harvester Church, December, 1984), p.15.
2. Earl Paulk, 'Held In The Heavens Until...' (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, 1985), p.234.
3. Ibid., p.235.
4. Earl Paulk, 'Thrust in the Sickle and Reap' (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, 1986), p.73.
5. Earl Paulk, 'Form With Power' (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, undated), p.5.
6. Ibid., p.4.
7. Earl Paulk, 'The Great Escape Theory' (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, undated), p.14.
8. Gary North, 'Unholy Spirits' (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1986), p.394.
9. Gary North, 'Paradise Restored' (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1985), p.339.
10. Ibid., p.331.
11. David Chilton, 'Paradise Restored,' p.12.
12. Ibid., p.213.
13. Ibid., p.214.
14. Ibid., p.10.
15. Ibid., p.53.
16. Pat Robertson, speech at Dallas '84, Maranatha Campus Ministries convention.
17. Ibid.
18. Orange County 'Register.'
19. Pat Robertson, speech at Dallas '84.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Gary North, 'Paradise Restored,' p.328.
23. Ibid., p.329.