Subsidiary to the issues surrounding Preterism is a doctrine in which it is held that the visible church will one day rule the world, prior to the return of Jesus Christ.  This is, of course, a form of post-millennial theology, and so it’s nothing new.  Some of the greatest Protestant teachers of all time have envisioned a golden age that will set sunshine on this blighted world before Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead. 

    Wedded to Preterism, however, this concept can be viewed as a powerful ideological weapon which, properly equipped, is seen fit to plow its way through all obstacles, in view of a set goal.  That goal is nothing less than the acquisition of worldly dominion by the visible church.

   Whether or not this belief is at least tentatively Roman Catholic in its agenda and worldview, is a matter up for discussion.  If the answer is affirmative, then we have in the RCC a historical playing out of the dominion ideal which should make every Christian wary to put it into practice once more.

   As I see it, there are several problems with such an ideology, which must prevent it from ever reaching fruition.  The main obstacle concerns matters of Biblical eschatology, which impact saleability, thus negatively affecting practicability.

      Few Christians are willing to believe that Jesus Christ “returned” in any manner in A.D. 70.  And yet this is the teaching needed most of all to bolster the dominionist approach.   To clear the board of annoying end-time prophecies which stand in the way of long-term goals and dreams, the great majority of eschatological passages must be shuttled back into a first-century fulfillment.  But this results in mischievous marginalization of essential texts, some of which are soteriological in nature. 

  Because of its reductionist attitude, Preterism becomes distinctly “anti climactic” in its effect on Christian believers.  This obviously hurts saleability.  In order to hook Christians into accepting a Preterist scheme, the bait must be made at least semi-palatable. Preterists instinctively realize that they must popularize their view as much as possible; so they follow suit.  But aside from gaining small circles of enthusiasts, their numbers bear no comparison with the growing tide of Christians who buy books on endtime prophecy.  Dominionists only utilize a Preterist scheme, not because it is the best theological answer, but because it offers seemingly formidable objections to Dispensational theology.  But because Preterism is not “good enough” for the majority, it is unfit to serve as an alternative to classical evangelical eschatology.

   Then there is another issue that comes to mind.  Even if the visible church, as conceived by Dominionists, were to gain control of the world institutions tomorrow, it would still have to deal with a large number of dissenting Christians.  In fact, I doubt that in this world, dissenters will ever go away.  The continued (and sometimes nagging) existence of those with opinions different from our own is something that most of us have learned to take for granted.  We accept it as a matter of course. 

     But the very existence of an adverse party stands in the way of dominion.  My thesis is that dominionists will never be able to gain (much less retain) any “control” without utilizing a measure of FORCE.  But in unvarnished Italian, this is “abuso di potere.”  Such an approach destroys any kind of Christian witness, transforming the church into a toothed-and-fanged monster which revels in the gore of martyred saints.

  Dominionists don’t seem to realize —  or perhaps they just forget –   that Christendom has ALREADY PLAYED the “let’s take over the world” game.    For centuries, Christianity was the official religion of Western and Eastern Europe.  The state was under the control of the Papal authorities; and human affairs were decided according to politico-religious expediency. 

   And what did the church do when she had attained this long-dreamt-of power?  Did she become a burning lamp to enlighten the nations?  Or did she end up darkening the clear light of the Gospel?  Did she meekly attempt to win back Christians whom she considered heretics?  Or did she turn the dogs loose on those who maintained opinions different from her own?  I think history records the answer.

   In the early fifth century, Pope Leo the Great, otherwise an excellent theologian (by Catholic standards) was preaching to his parishioners that dissenters may and should be persecuted:

  “Dearly beloved, I entreat and admonish you loyally to inform us, if any of you know where they [the Manichaeans] dwell, where they teach, whose houses they frequent, and in whose company they take rest: because it is of little avail to any one that through the Holy Ghost’s protection he is not caught by them himself, if he takes no action when he knows that others are being caught…

   “Display then a holy zeal of religious vigilance, and let all the faithful rise in one body against these savage enemies of their souls.  For the merciful God has delivered a certain portion of our noxious foes into our hands in order that by revelation of the danger the utmost caution might be aroused.  Let not what has been done suffice, but let us persevere in searching them out…” (Sermon XVII, 5, 6).

   Isn’t this the very party-line we hear neo-Catholic pugs deliver in their diurnal “rants?”  Isn’t this the same agenda that dominionists would follow?  While standing under Christ’s banner, Leo set precedence for the stake and the rack. And anyone with a smattering of European history knows that his policy was that endorsed and followed by Papal Rome for so many years.  What makes modern-day dominionists think that they would behave any more charitably toward those of diverse opinion?  It has already been slyly suggested by some, that should dominionists ever gain power, all heretics will be subjected to capital punishment.  For my Dispensational friends who read this, that means me and you!

   That men so educated as Gary North and Gary DeMar, could be so naive as to suppose that human nature won’t simply repeat itself under similar circumstances, reveals how intoxicating the dominion mindset can be to those who have swallowed its elixir.  I repeat, organized Christendom has already put the dominion idea to the test, on a MACRO level, and failed.    This should tell us that such dominion is no part of God’s plan for the present age.

   Only by the personal, visible, glorious return of Jesus Christ will dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (see Dan. 7).  Only at the sounding of the seventh trumpet will the kingdoms of this world become those of God and of His Son Jesus Christ (Rev. 11: 15).  Only the putting forth of resurrection power will be able to lift the curse that hangs over humanity (Romans 8: 19). 

    Yeah, yeah, I know all these verses were fulfilled in A.D. 70 —  right?  But if that is the case, one must wonder why the church has never gained dominion.  If an earthly pre-millennial dominion is God’s plan for this age, why hasn’t it ever been realized?  The fact that human history shouts against such a notion, gives us one formidable reason why we should be cautious in setting our agenda in such a direction as diverts our eyes from heavenly to earthly things.

    ”If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God.  Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.  When Christ, Who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3: 1-4).