PER:Christian Information Bureau May 1988  by Dave Hunt

   Dear Praying Friends;

   Last night I returned from Dallas, where Tommy Ice and I debated
Gary North and Gary DeMar on the subject of "Christian Reconstruction:
A Deviant Theology?" Video or audio cassette tapes should be available
soon for those interested. Tommy is an Austin, Texas pastor and a
former Reconstructionist who knows their beliefs inside and out. North
is co- founder (with his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony) of the
Reconstruction movement, and DeMar is co-author of the book, The
Reduction of Christianity: Dave Hunt's Theology of Cultural Surrender.

   Tommy concentrated on the Reconstructionists' failure to support
with a single Bible verse their Postmillennial eschatology (that we are
now in the Millennium with Satan bound and the church gradually taking
over the world). Ten years ago, when he was one of North's admirers,
Tommy asked North what scriptures he had to support his eschatology.
North made no reply and continued to stare at the floor without
answering as Tommy repeated the question. Tommy suggested that
Reconstructionists still have no Biblically-based eschatology. North's
response at the debate was that he has published David Chilton's Days
of Vengeance, which purports to show that the Olivet Discourse and
almost the entire Book of Revelation were fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the
destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Titus. Rather than attempting
to support this incredible thesis with a verse-by-verse exegesis,
however, Chilton simply imposes upon the Bible the Reconstructionist
presuppositions, which could never be derived from the text by any
reasonable interpretation.

   My approach was to show that their view of "dominion" is not only
deviant but the sandy foundation upon which the entire structure of
Reconstructionism is built. In Genesis 1:26-29, God tells man that, as
a higher order of creation made in God's image, he has been given
dominion over the earth and everything upon it: the trees, herbs, fish,
fowls, animals and all other life forms. Reconstructionists draws four
false inferences from these verses -- inferences that simply do not
follow from the text:

   1. That this "dominion mandate" includes ruling over other human
beings, setting up governments and institutions etc.;

   2. That "dominion" was lost by Adam at the Fall;

   3. That the key purpose of Christ's death, burial and resurrection
was to restore the dominion over earth and lower creatures which Adam
allegedly lost; and

   4. That the Great Commission of Matt. 28 is simply a restatement in
New Covenant terms of the original "dominion mandate," and thus
involves "fulfilling the same task."

   Upon this faulty foundation of "dominion theology" (of which
Rushdoony is said to be "the father"), the entire Reconstruction
movement has been erected. Yet Psalm 8:6-8 confirms what we each know
by experience (we still swat flies and eat chicken etc.): that even
after the Fall of man retains his God-given dominion, which is simply a
stewardship responsibility to care for the earth. Moreover, this
scripture reaffirms what is also clear from Genesis 1:26-29 -- that
"dominion" has nothing to do with ruling over other human beings, but
is limited to the things God has made ("the works of Thy hands ...sheep
and oxen ...beast ...fowl ...fish ...").

   Although Adam did not lose "dominion," he lost his relationship to
God and his place in Eden. Our hope, however, is not for a return to
that Paradise. As "new creations in Christ Jesus," we have been
promised something far better -- life in a new universe of absolute
perfection into which sin and death can never enter. In contrast to the
earthly God- visited Paradise Adam lost, we will dwell forever in the
very presence of God in heaven -- in our "Father's house of many
mansions," from which we will never be expelled. Therefore, to teach,
as do the Reconstructionists, that Christ's redemptive work "restores
what Adam lost," is the very "reduction of Christianity" which they
decry.

   It is a further "reduction of Christianity" to suggest that the
Great Commission calls us to reassert the allegedly lost "dominion"
over this earth and its lower creatures. And it is a gross perversion
to turn the Great Commission into a "cultural mandate" which assigns to
the church the task of taking over the world to establish the Kingdom
of God before Christ returns. Yet this "dominion theology" is rapidly
gaining ground among Charismatics and Evangelicals alike. One of the
most distrubing examples is the Coalition on Revival (COR), which we
mentioned in the February 1987 newsletter.

   The false assumptions of "dominion theology" are built into the very
foundation of COR. Its Steering Committee not only includes
Reconstructionists such as North, Rushdoony and DeMar, but other
dominion- oriented factions, including Earl Paulk-type Kingdom/Dominion
advocates such as Maranatha's Robert Weiner, pastors John Giminez and
"Bishop" John Meares; and Shepherding leaders such as Bob Mumford and
Dennis Peacocke. Their strong influence upon COR is quite evident.
Oddly, the rest of COR's roster reads like a Who's Who of Evangelical
leaders, many of whom are probably not aware of the heavy
Reconstructionist/Kingdom- Dominion/Shepherding influence in the COR
Manifesto to which they have committed themselves. North boast that
although much of the COR leadership still professes to be
Premillennialists, they have in fact become what he calls "operational
Postmillennialists."

   Going back to the debate, North and DeMar (because they cannot
support Postmillennialism with solid Biblical exegesis) adopted the
tactic of insisting that eschatology (the interpretation of prophecies
concering the last days) was not the issue at all, but that our real
disagreement was over ethics. On the contrary, we believe as firmly as
they that every area of the Christian's life belongs under the Lordship
of Jesus Christ and that the conduct of Christians must be above
reproach. We do not believe, however, that the unsaved world can be
"Christianized" by getting it to "conform to Biblical standards."
Paul's explanation of why Israel failed to conform is conclusive: "For
what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh...."
Moreover, even if this were possible, it would tend to provide sinners
with a veneer of self-righteousness that would make it all the more
difficult for them to see their need of Christ as Savior and Lord. Yet
COR declares that the Church has a "Biblical mandate" to play a
"leadership role with the world...transforming the world and
influencing it to conform to Biblical standards...before Christ
returns."

   There were serious ethical problems we might have raised at the
debate, such as Gary North's misrepresentations in his September 1987
ICE Newsletter. In it he stated that DeMar had sent me the manuscript
for Reduction, offering me the opportunity to respond to it, and that I
had "prudently declined." Yet North knew it had been impossible to
respond by the deadline they had set of August 12 (I only returned from
a trip to the East Coast the night of August 11 and had to get ready to
leave for three weeks in Europe on the 13th).

   In his March 1988 American Vision newsletter, Gary DeMar named two
large and prominent churches in Southern California in which he
declared the debate would be held on April 12 and 16, when in fact
neither church had ever agreed to host the debate. Then in his April
1988 newsletter DeMar wrote that "the debates we were going to have in
California "had been cancelled" becuase "the large churches and
ministries that initially agreed to host the debates [there were no
such "churches and ministries"] backed down after they saw the book
[The Reduction of Christianity], because they realize that their
position is biblically weak." Such fabrications stand in sharp contrast
to the impressive talk at the debate in Dallas about ethics and
Christianizing secular institutions through imspiring the ungodly to
imitate the godly lives of Christians.

   The attempt to fit Scripture into the false mold of 'dominion
theology' has created strange theories and contradictions. We are
accused of "defeatist eschatology" and gross "pessimism" for believing
that Christ will soon Rapture His bride home, marry her in heaven, then
return with her and the armies of heaven to rescue Israel, conquer His
enemies and rule this earht in righteousness and peace for 1,000 years.
Yet their teaching that it will require a minimum of 36,600 years (and
perhaps hundreds of thousands of years) of continuing ungodliness and
billions dying without Christ as Christians gradually take over the
world before our Lord can return is called "an eschatology of victory."
They will not allow Christ to be present to rule over the Millennial
Kingdom. Although He was personally humiliated, rejected and crucified
upon earth, they will not allow Him to be exalted, honored and
triumphant upon earth by personally reigning during the Millennium.
Since "dominion" is our "assigned task," it would be "defeat" for
Christ to intervene personally from heaven -- only if we do it all in
His absence is it "victory" by their definition.

   In fact, they say, Christ has already come. His promise to "come
quickly" was the comforting assurance to the Christians in A.D. 65 that
He would return in the person of the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem!
Nor is the marriage supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19 a future event
for Christ's bride to eagerly anticipate, but a symbolic expression of
the new meaning in the Eucharist since Israel's excommunication by God
when "Christ" destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (the church is now Israel).

   Gary North would have us become excited about the prospect that by
the year 2000 "Christians and [non-Christian] conservatives will be
swept into most elective U.S. offices by ridiculous margins." There is
such enthusiasm about the next Christian march on Washington and the
hope of taking over this world that the church has lost its vision of
heaven. I think it is high time that the bride of Christ became excited
about that heavenly marriage and the prospect of seeing and being with
her bridegroom forever. Oh, that a great cry would arise from the
church: "We love you, Lord Jesus! Please come and take us home! The
Spirit and the bride say, Come! Come, Lord Jesus, Come!"


   In Christ's love, Dave Hunt

   This has been put up on the board by the kind permission of the
staff of CIB, and I would encourage you to write to the address that
was at the beginning of this message to order their monthly newsletter
for $12.00 U.S. per year, (subject to change without notice.) Make sure
that chegues are made out on a U.S. money order and payable to:

   Christian Information Bureau

   PO Box 3120

   Camarillo Ca 93011
