I think the NAR is one of three influential movements of Christians that have a theocratic bent. I don’t have a clear answer as to which is most dangerous.
The NAR, which evolved out of the charismatic movement and has some huge churches (like Bethel in California) is probably the biggest numerically among rank-and-file MAGA cultists. I think it is the only one of the three that has significant overlap with QAnon.
Then there is a theocratic segment of the conservative Reformed world. A big name is Douglas Wilson of Idaho, known as a theocratic white nationalist. He influences churches throughout the country; Pete Hegseth attends one of them. Strong patriarchy is a distinctive. White Calvinist Christian men in charge of everything.
Third, the one I know least about, is a strain among some Catholic thinkers that I believe is called “integralism” that says the church should order society. J.D. Vance is apparently influenced by this movement.
The latter two have a more scholarly approach, while the NAR is much more populist. So maybe which is most dangerous depends on whether you believe the thinking classes or the masses ultimately have more influence.
Beautifully reasoned Allan. I think your three categories are really interesting as well as accurate from my reading. Thank you.
John, I appreciate your measured way of interacting with the recent Atlantic article & that the NAR is on your radar screen. (As a believer schooled by Tim Keller, I have been following the NAR with concern, seeing their political emphasis and 'ends justify the means' approach as not only a threat to democracy, pluralism but importantly to the actual gospel.
I agree with you about the numbers in the Atlantic article being overstated, but the NAR Is pretty influential in Trump-world. It’s much more than Lance Wallnau. An excellent overview of the movement and its major role in the Jan. 6 riot is given in a podcast called Charismatic Revival Fury.
Matthew Taylor has a book on that topic called something like The Violent Take it by Force, but I haven’t read it yet.
I was thankful ( and somewhat relieved) to read your thoughts today John. I read the Atlantic article and found it unsettling but moved on to my real life without seeking answers to my doubts. Even though I feel pretty well read, I had never heard of NAR or the seven mountains. I think I unconsciously concluded that this was one more article using an outlier to skew opinion about a group. I am using generalities because although this happens often with Christians, I see it also with political and ideological groups - finding an extreme and working to assign the extreme views to the entire group. It's nothing new but so very frustrating. I do appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the claims the author made. You raised some good point. The Atlantic seems to feel perfectly comfortable producing these kinds of articles.
I read McCrummen’s piece as well and had a similar question as you. I found a 2011 NPR interview with Wagner that suggests some ambiguity in what the 7 mountain mandate means to people:
“In terms of taking dominion, we don't — we wouldn't want to — we use the word dominion, but we wouldn't want to say that we have dominion as if we're the owners or we're the rulers of, let's say, the arts and entertainment mountain. What we strive to do and our goal is to have people in the arts and entertainment mountain who are committed to the kingdom of God, so therefore, we use the adjective there — kingdom-minded believers — and our goal is to try to have as many kingdom-minded believers in positions of influence in the arts and entertainment mountain as possible. And the reason for that is, to help bring the blessings of heaven to all those in the arts and entertainment mountain."
Whether this represents NAR’s current torch bearers, I don’t know. Dominion language is often reported on without understanding of the tradition around the creation manadate and to what degree that involves power or control.
I have never heard of NAR apart from The Atlantic article and here, but there seems to be (for lack of better words) a reoccurring "Theocracy Scare" concerning religion in public life, which seems to mainly have the effect of sidelining Christian voices in the public discourse. A good example of this (in hindsight) would be during the Bush 43 Admin when many books and much space in prestigious publications were written about how Bush would create a "theocracy" (I would argue that anti-Al Smith propaganda in the 1920s was similar, which anti-Al Smith tracts claimed that the NY governor would turn the US into a Catholic theocracy). In hindsight the Bush-theocracy discourse was silly, and I am inclined to believe that in 10-20 years time people will look back on the "Christian Nationalism" and Atlantic-NAR discourse in a similar light.
However (and I say this as someone who grew up secular/atheist in a secular/atheist environment (West Los Angeles), though as someone converted to Catholicism since), a fear of conservative Christians exercising their right to vote* plays a big role in left-wing organizing in the US. There are many people who live in a secular bubble who will read articles such as The Atlantic's about NAR (which as you mention is a moderately popular book in the (what I assume is small/niche) Pentecostal community) and will be motivated to give money to orgs such as Planned Parenthood, GLAAD, or the ACLU.
This is just my interpretation, so feel free to disagree, though I do think that articles such as the Atlantic one mostly serve as a sort of progressive demonology that is made to basically create an "other" out of conservative Christians, and to scare secularists into political mobilization in favor of left-secular goals.
*generally by voting in favor of pro-life laws or politicians or against various left-secular priorities. Christians voting in favor of laws/politicians who align with their metaphysical presuppositions is considered "theocracy" by many on the left.
I think one complication with your characterization of a "theocracy scare" is that there *are* influential Christians who argue for theocratic and/or antidemocratic positions. That doesn't justify lazy overgeneralizations or bad analyses, but it helps explain why some of these arguments get off the ground.
I think the NAR is one of three influential movements of Christians that have a theocratic bent. I don’t have a clear answer as to which is most dangerous.
The NAR, which evolved out of the charismatic movement and has some huge churches (like Bethel in California) is probably the biggest numerically among rank-and-file MAGA cultists. I think it is the only one of the three that has significant overlap with QAnon.
Then there is a theocratic segment of the conservative Reformed world. A big name is Douglas Wilson of Idaho, known as a theocratic white nationalist. He influences churches throughout the country; Pete Hegseth attends one of them. Strong patriarchy is a distinctive. White Calvinist Christian men in charge of everything.
Third, the one I know least about, is a strain among some Catholic thinkers that I believe is called “integralism” that says the church should order society. J.D. Vance is apparently influenced by this movement.
The latter two have a more scholarly approach, while the NAR is much more populist. So maybe which is most dangerous depends on whether you believe the thinking classes or the masses ultimately have more influence.
Beautifully reasoned Allan. I think your three categories are really interesting as well as accurate from my reading. Thank you.
John, I appreciate your measured way of interacting with the recent Atlantic article & that the NAR is on your radar screen. (As a believer schooled by Tim Keller, I have been following the NAR with concern, seeing their political emphasis and 'ends justify the means' approach as not only a threat to democracy, pluralism but importantly to the actual gospel.
I agree with you about the numbers in the Atlantic article being overstated, but the NAR Is pretty influential in Trump-world. It’s much more than Lance Wallnau. An excellent overview of the movement and its major role in the Jan. 6 riot is given in a podcast called Charismatic Revival Fury.
Matthew Taylor has a book on that topic called something like The Violent Take it by Force, but I haven’t read it yet.
Thanks, Allan. A friend also pointed me to this issue of Modern Reformation magazine: https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/issues/this-isnt-the-reformation-youre-looking-for
I was thankful ( and somewhat relieved) to read your thoughts today John. I read the Atlantic article and found it unsettling but moved on to my real life without seeking answers to my doubts. Even though I feel pretty well read, I had never heard of NAR or the seven mountains. I think I unconsciously concluded that this was one more article using an outlier to skew opinion about a group. I am using generalities because although this happens often with Christians, I see it also with political and ideological groups - finding an extreme and working to assign the extreme views to the entire group. It's nothing new but so very frustrating. I do appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the claims the author made. You raised some good point. The Atlantic seems to feel perfectly comfortable producing these kinds of articles.
I read McCrummen’s piece as well and had a similar question as you. I found a 2011 NPR interview with Wagner that suggests some ambiguity in what the 7 mountain mandate means to people:
“In terms of taking dominion, we don't — we wouldn't want to — we use the word dominion, but we wouldn't want to say that we have dominion as if we're the owners or we're the rulers of, let's say, the arts and entertainment mountain. What we strive to do and our goal is to have people in the arts and entertainment mountain who are committed to the kingdom of God, so therefore, we use the adjective there — kingdom-minded believers — and our goal is to try to have as many kingdom-minded believers in positions of influence in the arts and entertainment mountain as possible. And the reason for that is, to help bring the blessings of heaven to all those in the arts and entertainment mountain."
https://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/140946482/apostolic-leader-weighs-religions-role-in-politics
Whether this represents NAR’s current torch bearers, I don’t know. Dominion language is often reported on without understanding of the tradition around the creation manadate and to what degree that involves power or control.
I have never heard of NAR apart from The Atlantic article and here, but there seems to be (for lack of better words) a reoccurring "Theocracy Scare" concerning religion in public life, which seems to mainly have the effect of sidelining Christian voices in the public discourse. A good example of this (in hindsight) would be during the Bush 43 Admin when many books and much space in prestigious publications were written about how Bush would create a "theocracy" (I would argue that anti-Al Smith propaganda in the 1920s was similar, which anti-Al Smith tracts claimed that the NY governor would turn the US into a Catholic theocracy). In hindsight the Bush-theocracy discourse was silly, and I am inclined to believe that in 10-20 years time people will look back on the "Christian Nationalism" and Atlantic-NAR discourse in a similar light.
However (and I say this as someone who grew up secular/atheist in a secular/atheist environment (West Los Angeles), though as someone converted to Catholicism since), a fear of conservative Christians exercising their right to vote* plays a big role in left-wing organizing in the US. There are many people who live in a secular bubble who will read articles such as The Atlantic's about NAR (which as you mention is a moderately popular book in the (what I assume is small/niche) Pentecostal community) and will be motivated to give money to orgs such as Planned Parenthood, GLAAD, or the ACLU.
This is just my interpretation, so feel free to disagree, though I do think that articles such as the Atlantic one mostly serve as a sort of progressive demonology that is made to basically create an "other" out of conservative Christians, and to scare secularists into political mobilization in favor of left-secular goals.
*generally by voting in favor of pro-life laws or politicians or against various left-secular priorities. Christians voting in favor of laws/politicians who align with their metaphysical presuppositions is considered "theocracy" by many on the left.
I think one complication with your characterization of a "theocracy scare" is that there *are* influential Christians who argue for theocratic and/or antidemocratic positions. That doesn't justify lazy overgeneralizations or bad analyses, but it helps explain why some of these arguments get off the ground.
Asa Presbyterian minister I look at this with sadness and trepidation. Churches like this in our culture have traded the cross for the golden calf.