The charismatic NAR folks who espouse dominionism are just a Pentecostal version of Christian Reconstructionism. I see little if any Schaeffer apologetics in their work.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It's both with them. (NAR political theology is my current research project.) Some cite and are clearly influenced by Rush, often via Gary North (who is charismatic, lives near many key NAR leaders in Texas, and has intentionally targeted them since the 80s), there's also Schaeffer influence.
North was never charismatic and he lived outside Atlanta and died in 2022. His influence on what became the NAR was never proximity. It was an intentional strategy to spread dominionism
Whoops, should not have used present tense for North. Re:him being "charismatic" while in Tyler, this is part of what I'm going by: https://www.garynorth.com/public/15373.cfm
First, apologies. I did not realize that was a typo.
But second, I don't see anything in this that one might read as North (or the Tyler Church) becoming charismatic. He abandoned The view that charismatics were demonic but this is more agreeing to disagree. And it was tactical (spreading Dominion)
But, for most of them, influences from the post-Latter Rain independent charismatic world supply most of the pieces for their dominionism. Their dominion theologies and strategies are different from those of the Reconstructionists on many key points, though they often borrow from North on economics.
Reconstructionists always want to say that their dominionism is "from the ground up" and requires a society where everyone's a Christian first, while NAR dominionism is imposed from the "top down." I don't buy it
Oh sure, I don’t mean to suggest that the NAR folks are getting it from Rushdoony. I just find it fascinating that Rushdoony’s vision has become so mainstream when he was reviled as such a fringe loon 15+ years ago.
It was influential even when he was perceived as a loon and while the NAR may not get it "from" Rushdoony (C. Peter Wagner?) and may have put their own gloss on it they didn't come up with it and they didn't get anywhere else
Is culture and law really separable? I don't think it is for RJR, who repeatedly makes the law the basis for culture. I'd argue that RJR and NAR arrive at the same point but from different directions: law to culture for the former, culture to law for the latter.
They have a relationship, but there is a strong difference between “ban Disney because it promotes antibiblical lifestyles” and “We want to take Hollywood for Jesus & change it from the inside out!”
The fundamental disagreement over methodology betrays the difference in their respective moralities.
I agree, and that’s what I had in mind by saying they come from different directions. But I think the line between those in practice is more porous than you’re making it out to be.
C Peter Wagner credited my former movement (Every Nation, prev Morning Star International) w/bringing dominion theology into his concept of the NAR. They fused CR (via George Grant) with 4th wave Pentecostalism. Screenshot from R. Broocks, Every Nation in Our Generation-only Schaeffer reference.
Comments
But second, I don't see anything in this that one might read as North (or the Tyler Church) becoming charismatic. He abandoned The view that charismatics were demonic but this is more agreeing to disagree. And it was tactical (spreading Dominion)
The fundamental disagreement over methodology betrays the difference in their respective moralities.