What scholarly definitions distinguish dominionism, Christian nationalism, and the New Apostolic Reformation?
Executive summary
Scholars treat dominionism as a theologically rooted political ideology that argues Christians are called to exercise "dominion" over society and its institutions [1] [2], Christian nationalism as a broader sociopolitical movement that fuses national identity with a particular Christian vision of public life [3] [4], and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) as a networked neo‑charismatic movement that channels dominionist aims through contemporary apostolic authority, spiritual warfare practices, and the Seven Mountains/Seven‑Mtn mandate [5] [6].
1. Dominionism: a theological blueprint for political transformation
Dominionism is defined in scholarly and watchdog literature as a theocratic or transformational ideology asserting that Christians are divinely mandated to govern civil society and reshape law and culture according to biblical precepts—sometimes expressed as “Kingdom Now,” Christian reconstructionism, theonomy, or the Seven‑Mountains mandate—spanning both Calvinist and charismatic strains [2] [1] [7].
2. Christian nationalism: identity, civic theology, and political mobilization
Christian nationalism is treated by political scientists as a broader political and cultural framework that seeks to make national identity coextensive with a particular Christian narrative and to privilege Christian values in public policy; unlike dominionism, it is often studied as an ideology driving collective identity and voting behavior rather than a single theological program [3] [4].
3. The New Apostolic Reformation: a contemporary vehicle for dominionist practice
The NAR is described by scholars and critics as a neo‑charismatic movement that emphasizes modern apostles and prophets, spiritual warfare, prophetic authority, and strategic occupation of societal “mountains,” and many analysts locate within it a practical, charismatic expression of dominionist goals even as the NAR itself resists tidy categorization [5] [6].
4. How scholars distinguish them—doctrine, scope, and mechanism
Academics distinguish the three primarily by scale and mechanism: dominionism names the underlying theological‑political doctrine that justifies transforming institutions [1], Christian nationalism names the political identity and policy outcomes that can be fueled by many theological currents including but not limited to dominionism [3], and the NAR names a social movement that operationalizes dominionist ideas through charismatic leadership, prophetic governance models, and spiritual warfare tactics [5] [6].
5. Overlap and why public discourse conflates the terms
Scholars and watchdogs note substantial overlap—dominonist theology often supplies the script for Christian nationalist projects, and the NAR supplies charismatic networks and organizing methods—so journalists and policymakers frequently conflate them even while careful researchers distinguish doctrine (dominonism), political identity (Christian nationalism), and movement infrastructure/practice (NAR) [8] [9].
6. Points of scholarly disagreement and caveats in the literature
Debates persist about boundaries: some scholars argue dominionism is the central engine behind recent political mobilization [8], while others caution that most adherents are neither uniformly theocratic nor violent and that dominionist ideas exist on a spectrum from soft cultural influence to hard theocracy [2] [4]. Researchers also warn that labeling—especially in media—can conflate distinct actors and motives, and that the NAR itself is heterogeneous and contested even within evangelical studies [6] [10].
7. Why the distinctions matter for policy and public understanding
Clear distinctions shape responses: treating dominionism as a coherent ideological program points toward monitoring doctrinal networks [1], treating Christian nationalism as a mass political identity suggests different remedies like civic education and political pluralism [3], and treating the NAR as an organizing formation highlights interventions around cultic leadership patterns, influence operations, and faith‑based political organizing [5] [6]. Scholarship underscores that conflation risks overstating uniformity and understating the varied theological, social, and political trajectories at work [8] [9].