<\/a> So, what is the book about? In a time of prayer sometime later, I can remember being confronted by the Lord with the words, where are strongholds<\/em>?<\/em> If you have been spiritually brought up in Pentecostalism\u00a0and radical Christianity like me, you instantly think of the spiritual princes of Daniel hindering Gabriel and Paul\u2019s great exposition of Eph 6:10\u201318.[2]<\/a> However, he took me to 2 Cor 10:4\u20135: For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations<\/em> and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive<\/em> to the obedience of Christ. (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Do you see the point? Strongholds are in the mind,<\/em> and we take every thought<\/em> captive. The fortresses and strongholds\u00a0we tear down are intellectual<\/em> ones. It is certainly very necessary to understand there is very much a spiritual dimension and reality behind these \u201cthoughts\u201d\u2014these may indeed be \u201cdoctrines of demons\u201d as Paul writes elsewhere.[3]<\/a> However, the point remains, when we reeducate ourselves according to scriptural principles, we break those strongholds down, remove their authority\u00a0to squat rent-free in our minds, and eject whatever spirits have held us bound.<\/p>\n So, the realms of spiritual authority, the armor of God in Eph 6, the fasting and prayer of Daniel\u00a0in energizing the chief prince Michael have an important and significant place, but a dominion theology\u00a0that lacks a coherent political and social program, with preference given to \u201cgoverning in the heavenlies\u201d by the operation of agnostic spiritual principles with no natural, physical outworkings or ethical and political commitments, is na\u00efve and immature. Thus, the purpose of the book remains absolutely the purpose of the thesis, which is<\/p>\n A manifesto for Christians who want to come out of the political closet and join the wider public square of broad cultural discourse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To get down a bit more to the nitty-gritty, what were<\/em> my frustrations with my Christian experience\u00a0that provoked me to study dominion theology in depth? That is not hard to enunciate, and it is a long list, but one particular sore point from which a multitude of sins has flown admits special reference: a particularly obnoxious feature of late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century conservative Christian thought has been the cyclical obsession with the \u201crapture,\u201d and this has extended into our present milieu. The \u201crapture\u201d will indeed be a glorious event, but as the posited rapture dates come and go, the obsession with it ends up discrediting Christian thought more generally as intellectually shallow and escapist.<\/p>\n For example, yet another viral hoax was perpetrated this year as a pastor announced Jesus had appeared to him and informed him of the date of the church\u2019s departure.[4]<\/a><\/a> Obedient congregants quit their jobs and accompany such prophetic ministers to the woods and mountaintops to wait for their catching away\u2014only for it not<\/em> to happen. Now you have the disgruntled, the distressed, and the disillusioned posting to YouTube, renouncing their Christianity. Other ministers have set the date only for it to pass and to excuse their failure by claiming it was because of their prayer and fasting that judgment was delayed and the rapture\u00a0deferred.[5]<\/a> Others have allegedly had the audacity to charge a \u201crapture fee\u201d to their congregants to guarantee their place in heaven.[6]<\/a> Similarly, the Left Behind<\/em> media series primarily targeting the American evangelical\u00a0market had amassed $41 million in sales at its midpoint by 2001 (it continued to 2007) and the creators were still milking the franchise with \u201cbehind the scenes\u201d expos\u00e9s in 2018; there was seemingly no limit to the appetite for the \u201ccoward\u2019s way out\u201d[7]<\/a>\u2014exit the Tribulation on the first rapture-train to glory.<\/p>\n The aforementioned Landa Cope\u00a0expressed my feelings about this perfectly when she said that \u201ctheologies of imminent return\u201d emerge as a reaction in conservative Christian circles whenever their \u201cradical\u201d brethren have begun to assert themselves in the wider, especially political culture and this, in turn, militates against building a coherent Christian theology of involvement. In contrast, she pointed out that Scripture\u00a0commands we are to \u201coccupy until I come<\/em>\u201d (Luke 19:13 KJV) and that the definition of the Greek word translated \u201coccupy\u201d is best understood as a call to build and shape all <\/em>the dimensions of culture, the arts and the sciences, the political and the social. Firstly, with the untimely assassination of Charlie Kirk, there has been a muscular response, especially amongst those of college age, against any attempt to sideline, discriminate against, or push them out of the public discourse on the sole basis of their Christianity. Those young Christians are now making their presence felt both intellectually, politically, and socially. These recent events underline why Christianity is so desperately needed in the public square, not as the self-serving barons, lords, and kings of the medieval, Catholic\u00a0hegemony but as the scientist, democrat, and merchant of Protestantism. That is, we are not, as is the frequent accusation against the Christian claims, seeking to impose a \u201ctheocracy.\u201d However, equally, we do<\/em> need to understand then how to apply<\/em> our Christianity in the public square in our pluralistic context, and this makes the availability of this work pertinent and appropriate.<\/p>\n Secondly, and this disturbed me most profoundly, many Christians, after rallying to the call to be culturally \u201crelevant\u201d in the 1980s and 1990s, had left their political closets but, by the turn of the new millennium, were retreating back to its safety and had even double-bolted the freshly refurbished closet door in the wake of the Trump\u00a0phenomenon post 2016. This spiritual contagion was not just confined to the \u201cdenominational,\u201d renewed, or traditional churches that had just caught a whiff of revival during the heyday of Spring Harvest.[8]<\/a><\/a>It was a global pandemic of evangelical, charismatic, and Pentecostal\u00a0proportions. I was personally involved in an influential, cutting-edge \u201cprophetic\u201d fellowship who energetically prophesied us all back into the closet because of the foulmouthed Trump and his coarse tweets, ignoring that he had also, like no president since Abraham Lincoln, opened<\/em> the White House to the evangelical<\/em>\u00a0Christian world, rather than just inviting a token senior bishop as a \u201cfaith representative\u201d to an otherwise ecumenical, multi-faith, Oval Office political pantomime. Such was my visceral reaction to this that I wrote the best part of 45,000 words in a month as a reaction to it and received the \u201cleft foot of fellowship\u201d for my trouble.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n Thirdly, as a wider issue of Christian political ethics, it was a perceived dogma of the Enlightenment, oft repeated in political science classes and the hallowed halls of government, that the \u201creligious\u201d belongs to the sphere of the private and should not intrude into the realm of the public, where an indifferent pluralism was considered the binding norm. Indeed, with more than a hint of irony, it was considered sacrilegious<\/em> for the private to<\/em> intrude into the public. For, in my view, this \u201csecularism\u201d in the public square functions as would a religious commitment, and further, its adherents are known for their fundamentalism, seeking to delegitimize those who would oppose them and to exclude all \u201creligious\u201d distinctives that would challenge their orthodoxy. <\/a>That is, in effect, we have a choice of two oppositional religious points of view for the public square, secularism or<\/em> Christianity, and it is appropriate we<\/em> understand how Scripture\u00a0is to be applied as the true religion, that we might not succumb in this generation, as so many of us have in previous generations, to the false narratives of the secular counterfeits.<\/p>\n Consequently, the book aims to fill in the knowledge gap for the nascent malcontents amongst the ranks of those young, rebellious Christian youth exiting their closets\u2014and also a vitamin-rich, spiritual smoothie for those parents who were once filled with that same youthful vigor but became fat and indolent in their comfort as that tolerated oddity on the fringes of civilized society. For they have since found the closets have been auctioned off by the new political landlords: it is no longer possible for Christians to live on their parochial reservations. <\/em>Now, full compliance to the political masters, with their digital IDs and their CBDCs, is being demanded on the pain of excommunication from civic society.[10]<\/a> The book provides some theological and philosophical underpinnings to the legitimacy of the dominionist perspective, endorsing full participation in every aspect of culture, including the social and the political, and can thus be considered a work in the best apologetic traditions of Christianity.[11]<\/a> Kuyper, an enormous and underappreciated intellect of the second part of the nineteenth century, had offered a searching critique of modernism<\/em>\u00a0whilst embracing the technological tools of modernity.<\/em> That is, Kuyper had rejected the philosophical<\/em> modernism that he argued had terminated in the aggressive and bloody atheism of the French revolution, but had also advocated forcefully for \u201cmodernity\u201d in the sense of embracing the scientific and technological advances of the period, founding the Free University of Amsterdam, two broadsheet papers, a political party (the Anti [French] Revolutionary Party), and serving as prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901 to 1905. As a result, he was at his most impatient with the religious conservatives suspicious of the innovations of the age.<\/p>\n Central to his philosophy was the concept of \u201csphere sovereignty,\u201d in which there are considered to be distinct modal spheres of human culture, in which the church had an ethical regulatory role, but to which it was not to dictate or censor.[15]<\/a> This concept was itself a recapitulation and modernization of the Reformation\u00a0emphasis on the legitimacy of and the equal value between the different \u201cvocations\u201d of human culture in opposition to the strict division between the religious and the secular, the priesthood and the laity, with its belief in the preeminence of the former. This tyrannizing over culture and the separation of laity and priesthood had been the cornerstone of the domination of culture by the Roman Catholic\u00a0hegemony for almost a thousand years, with the absolute authority\u00a0of the papacy in matters of cultural and scientific disputes. Following Rushdoony\u2019s pioneering work, the period of the 1970s and the 1980s was one of increasing political involvement of Christians in the political realm, particularly in the US. Conservative Christians generally had been particularly motivated by the 1973 Roe vs. Wade\u00a0case that had \u201cfound\u201d a constitutional right to abortion. President Jimmy Carter\u00a0was the first to bring his faith to the fore and to make it a political issue in the 1976 presidential campaign. Subsequently, both Ronald Reagan\u00a0and George Bush\u00a0made their faith commitment a feature of their campaigns, and even Barack Obama, in 2008, made capital from his time in a liberal Chicago church, equivocating at the time on \u201cgay marriage\u201d that he might get the black evangelical\u00a0vote. The charismatic revival of the period suddenly saw dominion theology\u00a0becoming a feature of influential Christian leaders within the movement who were seeking an alternative to the traditional evangelical\u00a0rejection of social action as being a feature of the liberal \u201csocial gospel.\u201d<\/a> We will examine these related but distinct streams of dominion theology far from the Reformed\u00a0roots of the movement. We then finish with an exposition of a Christian political philosophy\u00a0for the contemporary period.<\/p>\n Importantly, the book extends and develops substantially the content of a thesis upon which it is based, partly because of the passage of time and improvements in my own understanding, but chiefly because the thesis was subject to a strict word limit of twenty thousand words.[17]<\/a> That provided little opportunity to develop the argument beyond the narrow principal theme of establishing the orthodoxy of the position in response to its persistent portrayal as an extreme, fanatical form of Christianity, both from outside and within Christendom. I believe it provided, and still provides, an emphatic and coherent answer to that important historical question, but this constraint on its content was reflected in a question posed by an academic pastoral reviewer at the time, who had made the comment, \u201cso what are you going to do now you have established this orthodoxy, what practical use is it?\u201d[18]<\/a> The additional material represents the broad contours of an answer to that question, and the book subsequently differs most substantively from the original thesis by<\/p>\n Finally, for my part, it has been very frustrating that it has been nearly a decade that this book has lain fallow on my personal website, where it was (and is still) in its thesis form (though it is being slowly migrated as I post drafts of this book!). But I am very pleased that the time has finally come to revisit and overhaul the work for publication in this revised and extended form. As all this time has passed, I decided to include this extensive preface to add some color and background. I believed, when I first wrote it and still believe now, that dominion theology\u00a0is the most coherent form of Christian cultural thinking, and I commend careful consideration by the reader of what is written here. It represents a measured and critically thought-through response to those who, for whatever reason, be it fear, genuine ignorance, misunderstanding or maliciousness, have sought to misrepresent the position. It is very much a sister volume to my doctoral work and in this updated form, it is every bit as intellectually rigorous. It will provide substantive apologetic material for the believer seeking an intellectual defense of their faith beyond the pop-apologetics and cowardly dispensationalist eschatologies of our time.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This book is indeed for everyone interested in the subject but does have some advanced passages, arguments, and discussions in places for the most demanding of readers. Sometimes, the language is philosophical or theological, and it is important not to get stuck or bogged down if you are new to the subject or want a more general overview. There is no need to understand everything you read the first time through, and there is no need to read the book from cover to cover; you can use it like a textbook or a reference manual\u2014look at the contents, look at the indices, and read what you want to or need to, remembering you can always come back later if you want to dig deeper. There are lots of moving parts in dominion theology, with parts like the relationship to eschatology, the key historical figures,<\/a> or the application in the modern political context, meaning that most of the chapters within the book are able to stand and be read on their own, according to the interests and requirements of the reader.<\/p>\n \u2014Dr. Michael Macneil PhD, December 26, 2025<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> You can find Landa\u2019s two main books on this subject in the bibliography. There is also extensive material on YouTube, and I will draw attention to other web resources of hers at various points in the book.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> I hope my third book will actually be my first book, which I wrote way back in 1992. This explains my Christian experience\u00a0as I was trying to explain it to others. A semi-revised draft from 2012 is on my blog at https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/Documents\/ Content\/Macneils-Guide-for-the-Spiritually-Perplexed.pdf. Please note the trigger warning in the foreword!<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> 1 Tim 4:1<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> The pastor at fault this time was South African pastor Joshua Mhlakela, who has since publicly repented and stated he will never talk about the rapture\u00a0again; that is to his credit. Isoje, \u201cTimes Pastors Predicted Rapture.\u201d<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> This was the infamous claim by Nigerian Pastor Metuh, who claimed the day of the rapture\u00a0would be April 25, 2024. Isoje, \u201cTimes Pastors Predicted Rapture.\u201d<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> In Ekiti State, Pastor Ade Abraham of Christ High Commission made headlines after instructing his congregation to relocate to a camp where they were told to \u201cwait for the Rapture.\u201d It was alleged he asked followers to pay a \u20a6310,000 rapture\u00a0fee to guarantee their spot in heaven. Isoje, \u201cTimes Pastors Predicted Rapture.\u201d<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> This is a phrase I attribute to one of the most well-known and controversial of the British charismatic leaders between the 1970s and the 1990s, Gerald Coates, who led a thousand-member strong church (extremely large for the UK) and one hundred satellite churches nationwide at the height of his movement in 1997. He was one of the proponents of a charismatic form of dominion theology, \u201cKingdom Now,\u201d which we encounter later in the book. Coates, What on Earth Is This<\/em>, 36.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Spring Harvest was a major British Christian festival that, becoming the centerpiece of the European charismatic renewal in the 1980s and 1990s, generated a huge number of new songs and showcased a generation of Christian musicians. It was rare during that period to see a house church without \u201cSpring Harvest\u201d collections alongside Songs of Fellowship<\/em> and the legacy of traditional hymnals. Spring Harvest still exists today as an \u201cinterdenominational evangelical community\u201d: https:\/\/www.springharvest.org\/.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Macneil, Politics.<\/em> Explaining my colorful idiom, Paul and Barnabas received the \u201cright hand of fellowship\u201d from the Jerusalem elders in Gal 2:9 for the recognition of their ministry. A search on my blog (https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog) for \u201cCOVID\u201d will yield how strongly I felt over this issue at that time, particularly the removal of our political and social rights. My censuring was in the early days of COVID, and there was lots of discussion among our Christian leaders that the correct application of Rom 13 provided the imperative of the accepting of government mandates, as did the Levitical laws of quarantine to justify lockdowns.<\/p>\n In my dissension to this view, in what I saw as the illegitimate abuse of Scripture, I found myself at odds with my elders to the degree it was made clear to me I had to capitulate or leave; it was not<\/em> up for debate. After many months of reflection and being thoroughly convinced of the veracity and soundness of my position, I chose the latter. With the passing of the years and new, unrepentant publications on these issues from those same elders, I believe I was totally justified at the time in \u201cobeying God, not men\u201d (Acts 4:19), and my views have not changed regarding their capitulation at that time. I do not bear any personal animus towards them and would happily worship with them, but we certainly continue to differ when it comes to cultural philosophy.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> One particularly vivid account was from a personal friend who works in China. During the pandemic, their tower block had the main entry doors welded shut; when they had run out of pooled food, they began shouting from their balconies for help; a police drone then came and photographed them, with some receiving automatic fines to their bank accounts for \u201canti-social behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n This is the technocratic utopia being advocated by some of the most influential tech billionaires in the West; Larry Ellison has recently argued that the potential for 100 percent surveillance being offered by AI systems will ensure peaceful compliance to all laws, for we would \u201call be on our best behavior,\u201d and thus complete societal peace. Ellison should be commended for his technological achievements as the founder of Oracle and his current support of the IDF, but this aspect of his political vision I feel constrained to challenge. Straight Arrow News, \u201cOracle\u2019s Larry Ellison Sees AI Supervision.\u201d<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> By \u201capologetic,\u201d we do not mean, as in modern English usage, \u201csaying sorry for being a Christian,\u201d but rather the discipline of philosophical apologetics, where we defend the faith from its detractors and opponents. More technically, the Greek word used by the apostles Peter and Paul is \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 (apologia<\/em>), and quoting the Gingrich lexicon, defense as a legal technical term, a speech in defense of oneself: reply<\/em>, verbal defense <\/em>(2 Tim 4:16). Similarly, BDAG (the academic reference work for the Greek of this period), emphasizes this is a logical and structured speech<\/em> of defense; it is reason<\/em>ed,<\/em> rather than inspirational or preached. Hence, Socrates made his apologia<\/em> before the elders at Athens; it was a positive<\/em> statement as to why he considered himself innocent of the charges leveled against him.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> At first it might seem a breathtaking, sectarian move to leapfrog the entire Catholic\u00a0period in moving from Augustine\u00a0to the Reformation\u00a0with little comment on the thousand years between them, particularly when there were some fine \u201cCatholic\u201d scholars. However, in many of the most important respects, we can consider Calvin\u00a0to have re-expressed the patristic theology of Augustine in systematic form; Calvin\u00a0was also extremely familiar with the work of influential scholastics such as Scotus and even non-aligned dissenting literature.<\/p>\n That is, the Reformation\u00a0was a re-engagement with the primitive Christian foundations in their unadulterated form before their \u201cinfection\u201d with first Plato\u00a0and then Aristotle\u00a0(where Aquinas, though brilliant as he was, might be considered a baptized Aristotle.) Whilst the argument to do it justice would need to be far more nuanced than this, even in this course form it still has substantial force and truth in it, for the brutal and tyrannical nature of some periods of the Catholic\u00a0hegemony, and their violent opposition to protestant thought, is not something we need argue about, it is a matter of historical record.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> By the \u201cmodern period,\u201d I do not mean our contemporary period but that which is argued to have begun with the Renaissance, the earliest dates being given as around 1250, with Italian figures like the painter Giotto and the writer Dante Alighieri. It was characterized by an increasing preeminence being given to the role of reason\u00a0and the rejection of ecclesiastical authority, especially that of the papal dynasties. However, the Renaissance was in fact spread over many centuries and had both Christian and violently anti-religious movements within it; the Reformation\u00a0shared the basic Renaissance position in rejecting traditional papal authority and was a distinctively Christian expression of it. Similarly, it was not until the early seventeenth century that Descartes is considered the first of the \u201cmodern\u201d philosophers, and the \u201cJewish Renaissance\u201d was not to occur in the parochial Russian Jewish communities until the mid-nineteenth century.<\/p>\n There are also considered to be separate movements of the French and German Renaissance, and as a matter of disambiguating the terminology, the \u201cEnlightenment\u201d is better considered that period of the later Renaissance where the focus on reason, science, and individual political liberty\u00a0increased. Many history books argue that the Enlightenment chronologically followed the Renaissance; this is a gross oversimplification as they were different aspects of the same intellectual movement that asserted the right of men to think outside of ecclesiastical authority, free of the fear of sanction. Whilst the secular Enlightenment might cry \u201cautonomy\u201d in rejection of all religious metanarratives as a way of life, the Christian Enlightenment argued for the right of each individual to directly approach God without the need of a priestly mediator, the essence of a Protestant\u00a0perspective.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> As we shall see, modern revivalism\u00a0is often associated with Charles Finney, and he is held up as the archetype and hero of the movement. However, Finney argued for and executed an aggressive presence in all the spheres of culture, most notably the political and the educational, serving as the first president of Wheaton College. He actively encouraged his followers to engage in political fights and to obtain political office, as can be read in his autobiography (which is public domain). Although he rejected the constraints that Calvinism had imposed on the ministers of the colonies, which he had viewed as the cause of their failures to maintain a Christian culture, his cultural philosophy was far closer to that of orthodox Presbyterian J. Gresham Machen, the founder of the Calvinist Westminster Theological Seminary, than the modern revivalists and fundamentalists who followed in his wake.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> I consider his remarkable cultural and political achievements in Macneil, Abraham Kuyper<\/em>, where I also offer an explanation as to why he is a figure that has been generally ignored outside the parochial boundaries of the Reformed\u00a0world.<\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Van Til\u00a0remained for over fifty years in that position.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> This book is an updated version of my Master of Arts (Studies in Philosophy and Religion) dissertation which obtained a Distinction at the University of Bangor in North Wales in 2016. My supervisor for the dissertation, now Emeritus Professor Eryl Davies, said that it would be \u201can absolute tragedy\u201d if it was to remain gathering dust on the library shelves and encouraged me to publish it. That has remained frustratingly out of reach until now but post my doctoral studies and the successful publication of a book based on those studies (Macneil, Foundations of Philosophy<\/a>), I have been able to revisit, update and prepare it for publication, receiving further encouragement and assistance from Professor Davies and the current Head of the School, Professor Lucy Huskinson, to do so.<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> The questioner was the principal of a Pentecostal\u00a0Bible college in Hungary, so I considered it worthy of consideration.<\/p>\n [19]<\/a> Stated most fully in Macneil, \u201cPolitics.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nThe main motivation for me when I wrote the \u201cReformed\u201d thesis upon which this book is based was because I felt an intellectual shallowness in my spiritual experience. I had heard a lot about \u201cdominion\u201d but knew there was much more that I was not seeing or understanding. At that point of spiritual dejection and despair, I went to a conference held by GPC in Glasgow, Scotland, where an elder of the faith Landa Cope\u00a0(one of the founders of YWAM\u00a0in the 1970s) was speaking. It was the first time I had heard someone talk about the arts, science, politics, and the \u201cOld Testament Template\u201d for the discipling of the nations\u2014it was like \u201cshoot this into my veins.\u201d It was intellectually like a five-course meal after living on McDonalds, pizzas, and kebabs for years, and it triggered a revolutionary change for me.[1]<\/a> At the time, I was studying on a taught master\u2019s degree and decided to make it the subject of the dissertation, from which this book has descended.<\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/a>
\nIn detail, the Greek verbal form used is \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f7b\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 (from pragmateuomai\u2014Strong\u2019s 4231), which is in the imperative mood, middle voice aorist and has the literal meaning of \u201c[you, yourself] trade, do business [now!].\u201d Most modern versions translate the verse using this basic verbal idea of \u201cdoing business,\u201d but in this case (I am not a \u201cKJV only\u201d advocate!), the King James translators did a much better job in capturing the idiomatic sense in which the verb is being used. The context demands a stronger sense of the word: the master is going away and leaving his servants in charge until he returns; it is not just the narrow sense of \u201ctrading\u201d that is intended here but the broader sense of taking care of the master\u2019s affairs by assuming a governmental position (in the passage, it is that delegation that causes the dispute). The account finishes with showing the diligent subjects receiving responsibility for entire cities, not just a financial reward. This building and shaping of culture is what this book is about and there were, in addition, some strong, motivating reasons for making the book happen at this time.<\/p>\n
\n<\/a>
\nMore specifically, the book examines \u201cdominion theology\u201d as a feature of Reformation\u00a0thought, which had incorporated the late-Augustinian thinking of the patristic period as central to their worldview. The Reformers had frequently wrestled with what was the correct eschatological thinking regarding the triumph of Christ throughout the world, and it is appropriate that we start there.[12]<\/a> We then move through the \u201cmodern period,\u201d[13]<\/a> where Christianity\u00a0wrestled with the tensions between evangelism and wider social action, progressing to where in the last century we see modern revivalism and fundamentalism\u00a0essentially rejecting social and political action as a distraction,<\/a> with the result that conservative, Arminian Christianity\u00a0essentially ghettoized itself for half a century.[14]<\/a> However, in opposition to these obscurantist and fundamentalist\u00a0movements, there was a separate stream within the neo-Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper\u00a0that addressed the challenge of the same philosophical modernism\u00a0and modernity very differently.<\/p>\n
\n<\/a>
\nThis found further expression in J. Gresham Machen\u2019s work after his separation from Princeton and the founding of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Kuyper\u00a0had lectured famously at Princeton in 1899 and was one of the major influences on the conservative wing of the Presbyterian movement that had eventually coalesced under Machen. A distinct theology and, more importantly, a praxis<\/em> of Christian involvement emerged from Machen\u2019s life and work in this period. He frequently addressed the US Congress arguing for the preeminence of biblical principles in opposition to the socialism of the great societal and economic reforms that were being enacted under the auspices of Roosevelt\u2019s New Deal. With his emphasis on the full societal involvement of the Christian community, Machen, I argue, is the historical precursor to what became modern dominion theology. However, it was to be after the Second World War, in the sociological, political, and theological upheavals of the period, that, in the work of one man, R. J. Rushdoony, a coherent Christian critique emerged. His subsequent development of a sociological program of reform\u00a0is the first position that properly qualifies for the designation \u201cdominion theology.\u201d He incorporated both Machen\u2019s practical orientation and fortified it with the seminal thought of Machen\u2019s first professor of apologetics at Westminster, Cornelius Van Til, who had himself been influenced by Kuyper\u2019s philosophy of sphere sovereignty.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Who This Book Is For and How to Read It<\/h3>\n
<\/h2>\n
\n