Book review
Dominion!
Full description of book:
C. Peter Wagner, Dominion!: How Kingdom Action can Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Chosen Books, a division of Baker publishing Group, 2008). ISBN 978-0-8007-9435-4.
Review:
This book by "Apostle" C. Peter Wagner is indeed an interesting book. As a book on the New Apostolic Reformation's theory of Dominionism, it is indeed the most concrete expression of the theory of and behind the New Apostolic understanding of the "Cultural Mandate". It therefore does provide us a lot of information in this respect.
With 10 chapters, an introduction and 198 pages of text, Wagner develops his thesis of Dominion theology. In each chapter, Wagner laid down the grounds for his new system of thought. In chapter 1, he talks about the New Wine of the "Second Apostolic Age", chapter 2 describes the new horizon of Social Transformation. chapter 3 the new paradigm of Dominion theology, chapter 4 the new "theological breakthrough" of Openness theology, chapter 5 a new vitality of "The power of the Holy Spirit", chapter 6 a new reality of "Warfare", chapter 7 a new scenario of the "Church in the Workplace", chapter 8 a new strategy in "learning from experience", chapter 9 a new influence on "Money answers everything", and chapter 10 on a new urgency of getting the job done.
In analyzing the book, we would have to address the main theme of Dominionism which is taught throughout it. Before we look at the concept however, let us go through a few points of serious concerns in this book: namely, Wagner's argument for the 'New Wine", his teaching on the Holy Spirit, and his "new theological breakthrough", in that order.
The "New Wine"
The basis for Wagner's appeal for the necessity of present-day apostles is based upon two premises: the changing of the times, thus creating the necessity of having "new wineskins" (p. 32), and the foundational authority of the apostles for today's churches, thus the need to have present-day apostles (p. 27-29). We will address these two separately.
The first reason for Wagner's appeal for the need of apostles rest in his interpretation of Jesus' teaching in Mt. 9:15-17. In Wagner's words:
The phenomenon of the Second Apostolic Age is clearly a new wineskin in the unfolding history of the Church. New wineskins are common. As the Church of Jesus Christ has grown throughout the centuries, it has never grown in exactly the same way. It grew one way in New Testament times, another way in the Roman Empire before Constantine, another way in the Roman Empire after Constantine, another way in the Middle Ages, another way in the time of the Reformation, another way in the era of European colonization and another way after World War II, to select a few broad slices of church history. Every one of these changes in the patterns of church growth required a new wineskin.
Jesus taught about wineskins in conjunction with one of the most radical changes in the Bible, that of moving from the old covenant to the new covenant. On one occasion, John the Baptist's disciples came to see Jesus because they were upset over being so hungry. John the Baptist was making them fast all the time, while Jesus and His disciples were eating and drinking and enjoying life. They asked Jesus for an explanation.
In Matthew 9:15-17, Jesus taught them something about the bride and the bridegroom, then about putting new patches on old garments. Finally He came to wineskins. In this context, John the Baptist represented the old wineskin of the old covenant, and Jesus represented the new wineskin of the new covenant. Jesus said, "Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the win is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined" (verse 17) (p. 32)
Thus, in Wagner's scheme of things, there always has been waves in the churches which call for new ways of doing things, thus necessitating the need for "new wineskins". This is truly an interesting but wrong way of looking at church history. One of the slogans of the Reformation for example, following the Renaissance in its literary influences, is ad fontes or to the source. The Reformers did not see themselves as introducing novelty into the churches, but reforming the church back to the standard which is Scripture. Novelty in doctrine and practice in the Bible is associated with error (Jer. 6:16). The Old Testament prophets eschewed novelty and are always calling the people of God back to the Mosaic Covenant and the standards of the Law.
The coming of Jesus is indeed a new thing from the viewpoint of progressive revelation. Yet, to posit a sharp discontinuity between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, as if the New Covenant is a "new wineskin" in the sense that Wagner understands them, is in error. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but fulfil it (Mt. 5:17). While Jesus does introduce a new covenant, it was new only in contrast to the letter of the law, not with regards to the promises therein. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Wagner followed through with his interpretation of Mt. 9:15-17. It is read with astonishment that Wagner thinks that John the Baptist's disciples asked Jesus for an explanation because they were upset over being hungry. Such is not stated in the text of Scripture; in point of fact John's disciples asked the question because, as the messenger of the message of repentance, they follow the Old Testament prophets of which John the Baptists was the last of them (Mt. 11:11-15). They mistook Jesus as following the same mould of calling the people to repentance for their sins, not yet knowing that Jesus was the Savior Himself who came to comfort the repentant hearts of sinners (Mt. 9:12-13) and celebrate the addition of sinners into the kingdom of God. Instigation by the Pharisees was also one of the causes (cf Lk. 5: 33, where the Pharisees were stated to ask the question), who probably used the differences in approach of John the Baptist and Jesus as a pretext to accuse Jesus and his disciples of not being pious.
What then is the biblical interpretation of the wine and the wineskins? The context shows us it is in the context of Christ being there for disciples and thus this is not yet the time for fasting, in the same way as nobody fasts during the wedding celebration. Thus, the analogy of the old and new cloths, and of the wine and the wineskins, illustrates the incompatibility of the times for such a task. As new cloth ought not to be sewed into the old garment, and new wine into old wineskins, so the time of celebration and feasting ought not to be mixed with the time of fasting which will come later.
The example of the wine and wineskins, and thus also of the cloth and the garments, are meant to be taken as analogies to answer John the Disciples' and the Pharisees' objection of Jesus' disciples not fasting. It thus illustrates the principle that things should be done in their appropriate times, and not inappropriately. Therefore, far from it to support Wagner's theory of having new wineskins for the new wine of the Spirit, this analogy is meant to be treated as purely an analogy for the express purpose of teaching an object lesson of the appropriate time for the appropriate activity in light of Jesus' presence. It was never meant to be taken metaphorically, especially since the biblical metaphor of wine and drunkenness depicts being under the wrath of God [1]. There are therefore no "new wave" of the Spirit requiring "new wineskins", but rather the work of the Spirit working in the same way in different times for the same end of reconciling men to God.
The second rationale for Wagner's support of the necessity of apostles today lies in his interpretation of the passage on the foundational importance of apostle for the Church, citing Eph. 4:11 and 2:20 as showing that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and that some are given to be apostles, some prophets etc (p. 28). The error in Wagner's interpretation is Wagner's myopic view of the Church as compromising only believers in the here and now, rather than believers of all ages. Of course, the apostles and prophets are the foundations of the Church, but whoever said that therefore there must be apostles and prophets today? Using the analogy of a building as the NT did, whoever continues to build the foundation after it has already been laid and the building is already halfway to completion? The Church is made up of believers from all ages, so therefore we still have apostles and prophets because we have historical and doctrinal continuity with the first century Church. Wagner's interpretation is thus wrong, and these verses thus do not prove one bit that apostles and prophets are needed in modern-day churches.
Wagner's pneumatology
Wagner's pneumatology is shockingly simplistic as he puts down all views that do not believe in his take on the Holy Spirit as those who do not recognize "the power of the Holy Spirit" (p. 98). It is simply astonishing that someone who graduated from a then more reformed and conservative Bible-believing seminary, Fuller Seminary in its early days, would be so ignorant about Reformed Pneumatology. According to Wagner, only when there is visible supernatural manifestation of tongues and other miracles is the power of the Holy Spirit manifested. Yet the Scripture teaches otherwise. The Holy Spirit is the person who convicts men of sin and judgment and righteousness (Jn. 16:8) and regenerates men so that they will believe the Gospel (Jn. 3:5-8 cf Eze. 37:9-10). Thus, every conversion manifests the power of the Holy Spirit at work. Wagner's fascination with the spectacular is contra to the stand of Scripture[2] and misinterprets the purposes of the sign-gifts, which were meant to fulfil prophecy regarding the Messiah (Lk. 4:17-21) and the [real] apostles' message (2 Cor. 12:12). As with many charismatics who promote the gift of tongues, the text of Mk. 16:17 is abused as if tongues are supposed to always follow the Gospel message. One wonders why Wagner and most other charismatics do not consistently follow their interpretation throughout and similarly pick up snakes and drink poisons too (Mk. 16:18)!
Wagner's skewed vision of the work of the Holy Spirit translates into his idea of power evangelism, as seen in his castigating the apostle Paul for being too intellectual in Athens, which Paul was stated to later correct in Corinth (pp. 108-109). The problem with Wagner's interpretation is that the Scripture do not substantiate it. After Paul left Athens, he did the exact same thing in Corinth: in reasoning in the synagogue and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks there (Acts 18: 4). Thus, when Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians chapter 2 verses 1 and 4, Paul was not advocating Wagner's idea of supernaturalism, but rather was talking about the source of his power, and how this power and wisdom is seen in his reasoning and persuasion powers. Just as it was previously, Wagner's penchant for the spectacular makes him blind to the actual meaning of the text of Scripture, whereby sanctified reasoning is indeed the power of God for apologetics and evangelism.
The new "theological breakthrough"
One would think that for a movement that claims to possess apostolic authority, they should prove themselves to be true to Scripture. Yet, in this most shocking chapter in his book Chapter 4, Wagner has decided to pitch the entire New Apostolic Reformation movement in the theological ground of the recent Openness theology or Open Theism, a theology which states that God does not and cannot know the future because if so then there would be no real "free will". In this system, God "sovereignly" limits his own sovereignty in order for Man to be free. I have previously done a book review of the classic work on Open Theism by Clark Pinnock et al entitled The Openness of God[3], so I would not be refuting Open Theism here, but just interact with some of Wagner's arguments in support of it. It is indeed shocking (or perhaps it shouldn't be too shocking since embracing one heresy would open one to embracing others) that Wagner can say the following statements:
It [Open Theism] is simply a different conclusion arrived at by those who take the authority of Scripture and the sovereignty of God just as seriously as the believers who hold the classical theism view.
To use other terminology, a respectable view is that neither classical theism nor open theism should be categorized as a theological absolute. I [Wagner] like the suggestion that we classify our theological views as "absolutes", "interpretations" or "deductions." By this definition, both classical theism and open theism would clearly be deductions. Good, solid, respectable theologians have the freedom to take their choice between the two points of view. Open theism is an open question. (p. 83)
It is surmised that since Wagner denigrated reasoning and thus logic in his attack on Paul in Athens, it is no wonder that he treats deductions as mere opinions. Such is indeed a case of misology and anti-intellectualism. Logical deductive arguments are structured in such a way that the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed if the premise are true and the argument structure is valid. Therefore, deductions are as true and absolute as their premises, which is why the Westminster Confession of Faith states thus:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: ... [4]
When we look at Wagner's support of Open Theism, it can be seen that all of Wagner's text are taken from the narrative, which is a huge red flag. Narrative texts after all narrates; it does not teach in and on its own. The direction of interpretation should be for the didactic passages to interpret the narrative texts, not the other way around. Wagner thus is error in his interpretation of Scripture. That the ultimate reason behind the rejection of classical or orthodox theism is philosophy can be seen in Wagner's stated reason why the test of Solomon in blessing him must be an open test whereby the outcomes could go either way, which is that if the outcome is known ahead of time, then "it would not seem like a real test". (p. 90). Of course, what constitutes or not constitutes a "real test" is not unanimously agreed upon and definitely not discussed here, but it can be seen that the entire issue is philosophical in nature, which shows Wagner's objection to the answer provided by Classical Theism is not really scriptural but philosophical.
I would like to close this section with looking at one narrative example raised by Wagner regarding the openness view. Wagner raised the issue of God's wrath against idolatrous Israel on Mount Sinai, when Israel descended into idol worship in worshipping the gold calf even while Moses was still receiving the ten commandments and other sundry laws from God (Ex. 32:1-14). God told Moses He wanted to wipe out the Israelites and start anew with Moses, yet Moses interceded with God and God "relented".
The problem with the Openness approach is that in this case God could not possibly have carried out his threat. Moses was a Levite, while the line of kings was prophesied to come from the line of Judah (another reason why in choosing the first king Saul, God did not actually want Saul to be the true king but just a placeholder for the real king David). If God was to wipe out Israel just as He said He would, then His promises would come to nothing. This episode therefore proves the failure of Wagner and Open Theism to grapple with the anthropopathisms found in Scripture, instead assuming that such figures of speech are actually real descriptions of God's emotions.
With all these done, let us go to the main topic: What is Dominionism?
What is Dominionism?
Dominionism can be defined thus:
The application of the Cultural Mandate in working towards Social Transformation by the strategy of having workplace apostles taking control of the various spheres of society, facilitating the Great transfer of Wealth and so bringing God's Kingdom here on the earth.
Every phrase here reveals something about the theory of Dominionism, which we shall look at below.
Application of the Cultural Mandate ...
Wagner states his belief in the Cultural (or Creation) Mandate early in his book (p. 41), quoting personal correspondence with John D. Hunter that it is a "mandate to change the world" (p. 41). Wagner uses this term and sees his theory as the proper application of the Cultural Mandate. Of course, whether Wagner has correctly understood the cultural mandate or applied it properly may be of dispute, but what cannot be disputed is that Wagner himself sees his theory as an application of the Cultural Mandate, which in his view has to do with "tak[ing] dominion and transform[ing] society" (p. 46).
... in working towards Social Transformation ...
Wagner sincerely believes that the application of the Cultural Mandate is to work towards Social Transformation, which is defined as the transformation of society to one based upon God's original design for human life (p. 11). In promoting this theory, Wagner claims that the exclusive focus of churches on the Great Commission is based upon the "Greek mindset", which "tells us Christians should be concerned with saving souls and going to heaven rather than paying much attention to material things like transforming our societies." (p. 41). Instead of embracing this "dualistic" Greek mindset, we should embrace the holistic "Hebrew mindset" which posits that "God and accompanying spiritual principles permeate all of life on earth" (p. 40). Therefore, the Cultural Mandate of transforming society is to be kept central alongside the Great Commission. This transformation of society must refer to "sociologically verifiable transformation" (p. 55), in which "an independent, outside, qualified observer using standard tools of social science or investigative reporting concludes that the social unit is now as different from what it used to be as a butterfly is from a caterpillar" (p. 55).
... by the strategy of having workplace apostles ...
Wagner creates the category of workplace apostles by first creating the idea of the Nuclear and Extended Church. The "Nuclear Church", analogous to the nuclear family, refers to the people of God "meeting in their congregation". Playing on the word translated church in Greek ekklesia (εκκλησια), Wagner defines the meaning of church to refer to "the people of God scattered out wherever they might be" (p. 140). The "Extended Church", analogous to the extended family, thus refers to "the people of God in the workplace" (p. 141). From there, Wagner states that apostles and prophets "should be found not only in the nuclear Church, but in the extended Church as well" (p. 141). In Wagner's words,
... there must be such a thing as workplace (extended church) apostles. God has given them the spiritual gift of apostle, and He has called them to a ministry or activity in the extended Church of the workplace, over against ministry in the nuclear Church. (p. 141)
... taking control of the various spheres of society ...
Society according to Wagner consists of seven spheres or seven segments of society — the molders of culture. These seven spheres/ mountains are in random order "religion, family, government, arts and entertainment, media, business, and education" (p. 144). Wagner quotes Wallnau approvingly, who says "If the world is to be won, these are the mountains that mold the culture and the minds of men. Whoever controls these mountains controls the direction of the world and the harvest therein." (p. 144). Each of these seven mountains have their own distinct cultures, in which there exists significant difference in "crucial nuances" such that it would be difficult "for anyone attempting to go to the top and take dominion of one particular sphere" (p. 147). Even worse in Wagner's opinion, most "nuclear church" leaders are ignorant of the culture of the "extended church". In order to exercise dominion therefore, workplace apostles are needed. These workplace apostles would "have the God-given authority to influence and take charge of a certain segment of society on behalf of the Kingdom of God" (p. 148), thus taking control of it.
... facilitating the Great transfer of Wealth and so bringing God's Kingdom here on the earth
In the beginning of this book, C. Peter Wagner states that "without vast amounts of wealth in the hands of righteous people who line up with the principles of the Kingdom of God, we will not see the social transformation that we desire" (p. 19), further stating that "we must cast out the spirit of poverty and replace it with the godly spirit of prosperity if we expect to act as effective agents of social transformation" (p. 19). After outlining his strategy of workplace apostles and control of the various spheres of society, Wagner says that "an essential part of the process should be to transfer the control of wealth" (p 182), such that the Extended Church and the Workplace Apostles have the money to implement their plans for dominion.
Wagner has decided to attack what he calls the "spirit of poverty". In Wagner's own words:
One of the most effective tactics of the evil spirit of poverty has been to persuade Christian leaders that poverty is somehow noble. This mindset entered the Church when Greek philosophy gradually replaced the biblical Hebrew worldview among church leaders around the time when Constantine was the Roman empire. ... Issues of wealth were associated with the material world, and truly spiritual people were to avoid wealth as much as possible. That is why, in the monastic movement that began around that time, the monks were required to display their spirituality with vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. While chastity and obedience are not as prevalent today, poverty unfortunately persists as a spiritual ideal. (p. 185)
While espousing a type of prosperity preaching, Wagner comes down hard on the love of money. He does this by interpreting Mammon as a demon (p. 189) who causes people to love money through his subordinate spirits of greed, covetousness, parsimony (stingyness), and self-reliance (p. 190), and therefore states that believers should therefore not love money because that is to worship the demon Mammon.
Wagner continues on to describe the chain of wealth transfer to channel funds for Kingdom use, from providers to managers to distributors and field marshals. Providers provide the huge amount of funds required for "Kingdom work", managers manage the money, multiply it and channel it to the appropriate distributors, who will in turn pass it to the field marshals who do the actual work "making things happen for the extension of the Kingdom of God" (pp. 192-196)
Here lies the Dominionist agenda and plans. So what does the Scripture say about this new theory advocated by C. Peter Wagner?
A biblical response to Dominionism
The concept of the church and apostles
We have already seen that Wagner's inability to conceive of the Church in any other aspect besides the here and now constitutes the reason behind his wrong interpretation of Eph. 2:20 and 4:11. The notion of present-day apostles therefore is not justified by the Scriptures. Ditto for Wagner's idea of the "new wine".
That said, what about the concept of the church? Is there such a thing as a "nuclear church" and an "extended church"? Or rather, what IS the church? Wagner defines the church as "the people of God scattered out wherever they might be" (p. 140). Is that how the Bible defines the Church?
The problem in evaluating Wagner's definition lies in its ambiguity and equivocation. It is indeed true that the Church is made up of Christians, and those Christians are indeed scattered out throughout the world and the workplaces. But is the Church "the people of God, scattered out wherever they might be", or, "the people of God scattered out wherever they might be"? The former emphasizes the fact that the Church constitutes the people of God, and their location is totally immaterial to the definition whatsoever. The latter on the other hand makes the location of Christians part of the definition of the Church. In the former, which is the biblical definition[5], the Church is not merely made up of Christians, but these Christians come together to "do church"[6]. The concept of the "extended church" therefore is not biblical, because Christians there cannot "do church" in their workplaces. There is only one Church, and she is spiritually minded and Gospel-centered. All believers are indeed part of one holy catholic and invisible Church, which is manifested in the visible churches in the world.
The concept of the Church in distinction from the State
The short discussion on the nature of the Church flows into the issue of the relation between the Church and the State. Needless to say, this topic is one that has been debated throughout the centuries. From the Scriptures however, it can be easily seen that the Church, being a spiritual entity of believers called out of the world (ek-kaleo), is therefore separate from the world as a whole. The Church is thus not a creation institution but a redemption institution. As Christ put it succinctly, his kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). Church and State therefore, or Church and any other Creation institution, must be held separate and not confused. Such of course would further discredit the entire idea of the "extended church" concept, not to mention the very idea of taking control of the "seven molders" or mountains, since it is illegitimate to confuse the creational and redemptive orders.
It is interesting here to note that Wagner seems to agree on this point, stating that he rejects theocracy and any imagined "ecclesiocracy" ([p. 15). However, after further reading, what Wagner is actually rejecting is forced conversion and imposition of "kingdom values" by a minority upon a majority. The "theocracy" or "ecclesiocracy" that Wagner is rejecting is one based upon minority rule, but he has no problem with such if it is done by a majority (pp. 17-18). This majority would be led by "workplace apostles" and "apostolic-minded" Christians. So therefore, while Wagner officially separates the Church from the State, he does so only for the "nuclear church", and not for the "extended church", thus smuggling theocracy and "ecclesiocracy" through the backdoor as his workplace apostles "influence and take charge of a certain segment of society on behalf of the Kingdom of God" (p. 148)
The Cultural Mandate?
The Cultural Mandate in Wagner's view translates into pure Dominion theology. Smuggling in theocratic principles through the backdoor, Wagner calls for the overthrow of the government of the various spheres by his new apostolic government (p. 150). Granted, Wagner perceives this as spiritual warfare and thus the government that is to be overthrown are the evil spiritual principalities behind the wicked people in power. But what if the situations do not change? Will they identify those who continue to stand in their way as agents of the devil? In his book, Wagner shares an incident in a section named "Buying a nation", in which an expenditure of USD2.5 million was stated to be sufficient to get your own candidates on the electoral ballots in an African nation, and through such means a nation could be "bought" (pp. 182-183). Modern-day colonization indeed! Is this what Dominionism leads to?
The idea of social transformation as the application of the Cultural or Creation Mandate, if divorced from its New Apostolic errant distinctives, is certainly still valid. The problem however lies as to who it is applicable to. The Creation Mandate is given to Adam in Creation, not Adam after the Fall in a redemptive matrix. Therefore, the Creation Mandate is a creation order mandate, and thus it is not part of the business of the church but of all of humanity. All people including Christians are to follow the Creation Mandate, but not as Christian obedience but as a universal decree of God for all men.
Wagner's attack on the neglect of the Cultural Mandate as being part of Greek thinking is simply amusing. It is of course no doubt true that parts of Greek philosophy are dualistic, but that is not true of all Greek philosophy (i.e. Epicurus's Hedonism). Further, the issue is not whether there is a division between the physical, social and the spiritual aspects of life which Wagner charges to Greek thinking, but rather which institution is responsible for which aspect of life? Christians are to take part in the Cultural Mandate, but not as Christians qua Christians but as fellow human beings who are Christians - qua men.
Being a pilgrim and a citizen
How does all this therefore translate in our lives? We are citizens of two cities or kingdoms: the City of Man and the City of God. We are born into this world and are citizens thereof. However, when we are redeemed, we have become sojourners and aliens in our own land (1 Peter 2:11) as our citizenship is now in heaven (Phil. 3:20). Like Abraham, we look forward to a city whose designer and builder is God (Heb. 11:10). With regards to our status as Christians, we are pilgrims on this earth The Church therefore being made up of believers who are all pilgrims in this earth and who therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with the Cultural Mandate under their Christian status.
Believers are still however in the world though not of it (Jn. 17:11, 16 , 18), and thus they remain citizens of this world. We are living in the already and not yet of redemptive history. As citizens of this world, we are to participate for its common good just like the Jewish exiles in Babylon (Jer. 29: 4-7). Therefore, we are also to help fulfil the Cultural Mandate together with the rest of fallen humanity. Of course, with a renewed mind, we can better understand the way it should be done, but the fact of the matter is that we are doing such as being citizens of this world seeking its good, for "in its welfare [we] will find [our] welfare" (Jer. 29:7)
The Bible's teaching on wealth
On the topic of wealth, the problem with Wagner's approach lies in how he weaves biblical facts with error. On the one hand, it may be true that there is a certain fascination with poverty, seen especially during the Middle Ages in the Monastic movements. Wealth is not an evil thing; what is condemned by the Bible is not money but the love of money (1 Tim. 6:10). Wagner is thus right in saying that we should not love money, although the whole idea of Mammon being an actual demon is unbiblical and based upon mere conjecture.
However, Wagner is in danger of encouraging the love of money, regardless of whether he intends to or not. By focusing on the need for money, and how we should want more money, Wagner invites falling into the trap of 1 Tim. 6:9. Riches and wealth after all ultimately come from the Lord (1 Sam. 2:7), and not only riches but poverty. Unlike Wagner, the Bible teaches that Christians may be poor too (cf Mt. 26:11, Rom. 15:26, Jas. 2:5). There is therefore no biblical basis, contra the Prosperity non-gospel, that God desires all believers to be rich. There is of course nothing wrong with being rich, but that is not the will of God for all people let alone Christians.
The idea of a great transfer of wealth to Christians is also without any biblical basis whatsoever, and comes across as a so-called "prophecy" required to come to pass in order for the New Apostolic movement to have the necessary funds to start implementing their grandiose plans of influencing the world. Wagner wrongly interprets Prov. 13:22 and uses it as a prooftext for his unbiblical transfer of wealth theory, while ignoring the fact that Prov. 13:22 is in the book of Proverbs thus it is Wisdom literature. Prov. 13:22 thus does not teach that all sinners' wealth will go to the righteous, but that this is a general principle of God's law seen in His providence. Much less does it have to do with the will of God regarding His sovereign decree of making men rich or poor. By ignoring the genre of the passage, Wagner's theory is without any biblical basis whatsoever. His other proofs come from the narrative genre, which cannot tell us anything except what happened then and there.
Lastly, Wagner's idea of multiplying money through financial planners having the "biblical standards of 100 percent returns or more" (p. 196) is based upon eisegesis of the text of Scripture. The "parables of the money managers", as Wagner calls them(Mt. 25, Lk. 19), are parables. They were meant to teach various truths (ie truths about stewardship), and multiplication of money was not the object lesson they taught. Since that is so, the exact details of 100 percent or more returns made by those who were commended in the parables are just incidentals to the truths the parables were meant to convey. Wagner therefore errs in thinking that these incidentals in the parables are actually teaching some lessons in financial returns when they actually aren't.
Dominionism is therefore an errant theory on all counts. It confuses the church with the world, err in desiring to re-build the foundation of the church (which if the foundation has already been built, then that means they are building another foundation which does not have Jesus Christ as the capstone) with their need of modern-day apostles and prophets, it makes the church into a political body and diverts her attention away from the Great Commission, and it promotes "sanctified greed". Dominionism is an errant theory therefore which should never have seen the light of day.
Conclusion:
Wagner's book is thus indeed a very useful book in showing all of us the New Apostolic Reformation's plans for world domination ("influence" by its true nature). It reveals to us the theoretical basis underpinning the movement, and as such show us how heretical it has become, a fact most easily seen in its promotion of the heresy of open theism. May God open the eyes of those caught up in this nonsense, and deliver His Church from the error of Dominionism. Amen.
References and Footnotes
[1] In Is. 63:6, getting drunk is a pictorial description of being under the wrath of God, while drunkenness is an metaphor for being under sin in 1 Cor. 15:34, and we are told not to be drunk but filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Wine therefore as a pictorial term is not a good metaphor to be used to describe the Christian walk.
[2] In Lk. 10:17-20, the seventy-two disciples which were sent out were joyful as they return due to the miracles they have performed. Nevertheless, Jesus ask them to rejoice more in their salvation rather than the miracles they have wrought, thus showing forth the biblical perspective on miracles and putting the spectacular in their rightful place as signs pointing to a greater reality, not the reality itself.
[3] Daniel H. Chew, Book Review: The Openness of God
[4] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I - Of the Holy Scripture, Paragraph VI (Bold added), as quoted in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 3. Accessed via e-Sword.
[5] Nowhere in Scripture is the location of Christians definitive of the Church. The Church is of course named after the place it is found (ie the Church in Ephesus, the Church in Rome), but both of them are still defined as churches independent of their localities.
[6] According to John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 9) and the Reformed tradition (cf Belgic Confession Article 29), the Church possesses three marks: the preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of Church Discipline. Such things cannot happen in an "extended church".