The Watchman Decree is a manifesto and corporate prayer liturgy written by New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) leader Dutch Sheets and publicized in mid-2022 on the charismatic political program FlashPoint. Distributed to congregations across the United States, it is designed to be recited aloud in unison by believers acting as a civic-spiritual governing body.
The text serves as a definitive case study in how NAR dominion theology redefines prayer from humble supplication into authoritative, governmental legislation over earthly politics.
Key Textual Excerpts and How They Reflect Dominion Theology
1. The Church Redefined as an Earthly Legislative Body (Ekklesia)
The decree opens with a series of "WHEREAS" statements that establish the authority of the speaker before issuing any commands:
"WHEREAS: We, the Church, are God’s governing Body on the earth. We have been given legal power and authority from Heaven. We are God’s ambassadors and spokespeople over the earth. Through the power of God, we are His world influencers..."
Dominion Reflection: In classical Christian theology, the Greek word ekklesia (church) refers to the "called-out" assembly of believers. NAR theology reinterprets ekklesia according to its ancient Greco-Roman civic meaning: a ruling parliamentary council. The text does not position the Church as a servant community, but as an earthly judicial agency endowed with "legal power" to execute divine edicts.
2. Explicit Assertion of the Seven Mountain Mandate
The decree moves into explicit declarations for total cultural hegemony:
"We decree that we take back and permanently control positions of influence and leadership in each of the Seven Mountains."
Dominion Reflection: This line directly codifies the Seven Mountain Mandate (Religion, Family, Education, Government, Media, Arts/Entertainment, and Business). The language here is not about evangelism, cultural persuasion, or pluralistic participation; it explicitly uses the word "control". It reflects the postmillennial dominionist belief that the Church must capture and occupy the top tiers of society to establish the Kingdom of God prior to Christ's return.
3. Conflation of Biblical Covenant and the U.S. Constitution
The decree orders the branches of American secular government to conform to divine and constitutional mandates simultaneously:
"We decree that America’s executive branch of government will honor God and defend the Constitution. We decree that our legislative branch (Congress) will write only laws that are righteous and constitutional. We decree that our judicial system will issue rulings that are biblical and constitutional."
Dominion Reflection: The text treats the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired covenantal document essentially on par with Scripture. By demanding that rulings be both "biblical and constitutional," it fuses civic law with theocratic rule. It presupposes that the United States has an exclusive, national covenant with God (mirroring Old Testament Israel) that Christians have the legal right to enforce.
4. Partisan Policy Codified as Divine Decrees
The liturgy quickly transitions into specific, contemporary American political priorities:
"We declare that we stand against wokeness, the occult and every evil attempt against our nation... We declare that our nation is energy independent. We declare that America is strong spiritually, financially, militarily and technologically."
Dominion Reflection: The decree sacralizes partisan political platforms. Abstract concepts like "energy independence," military might, and specific culture-war buzzwords ("wokeness") are brought under the umbrella of divine mandates. In this framework, opposing conservative political or economic agendas is treated not as a policy disagreement, but as complicity with demonic resistance.
5. Spiritualized Territorial Conquest
The decree concludes with triumphant rhetoric framed as unyielding spiritual warfare:
"We will NEVER stop fighting! We will NEVER, EVER, EVER give up or give in! We WILL take our country back... And we decree that AMERICA SHALL BE SAVED!"
Dominion Reflection: The phrase "take our country back" shifts spiritual warfare into territorial reclamation. The underlying theological claim is that Satan has illegally usurped authority over America, and that apostolic believers must mobilize as militant "watchmen" to actively dispossess spiritual and secular enemies of their positions.
For a closer look at how Sheets presents this theology in his own words, see Dutch Sheets on the Watchman Assignment. This short video is relevant because it shows Dutch Sheets explaining the core concept of moving "from defense to dominion" using the watchman identity. --------------------------------------------------------------------
The divergence between historic Christian ecclesiology and the definition championed by C. Peter Wagner and Dutch Sheets centers on the etymological origin, structural function, and spiritual mission of the Greek word ekklesia ($ἐκκλησία$).
While historic Christian orthodoxy understands the ekklesia primarily through Old Testament covenantal worship and the Body of Christ, the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) re-interprets it through classical Greco-Roman civic governance.
1. Etymological and Historical Root: Qahal vs. The Greek Assembly
Historic Christian View (Qahal Yahweh):
Historical biblical scholarship (spanning Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions) anchors the New Testament use of ekklesia in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament). There, ekklesia translates the Hebrew word qahal—the liturgical, covenantal assembly of Israel gathered before God to hear His word and worship (e.g., Deuteronomy 9:10; Psalm 22:22). It signifies a community "called out" from the world to belong to God as a holy priesthood.
The Wagner/Sheets View (The Roman Senate / Greek Boule):
Wagner and Sheets largely bypass the Old Testament covenantal background and focus on secular political history. They argue that Jesus deliberately chose ekklesia because in the Greco-Roman world, it described a legislative assembly, city council, or governing body summoned to conduct civic business and pass laws. Sheets further teaches that the Romans used an ekklesia as a governing council sent into newly conquered regions to alter local culture until it mirrored Rome. Thus, NAR teachers assert that Jesus intended His followers to function as a spiritual parliament.
2. Institutional Nature: A Worshipping Body vs. A Ruling Council
Historic Ecclesiology (Covenantal & Sacramental):
Across the historic branches of the Church, the ekklesia is defined by:
Worship and Word: The faithful proclamation of the Gospel.
Sacraments/Ordinances: The administration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Spiritual Community: The communion of saints united to Christ as His bride and body, exercising mutual edification, charity, and church discipline.
Authority within the historic church is inward-facing regarding church order, and ministerial (servant-hearted), not magisterial over civil society.
The Wagner/Sheets Ecclesiology (Legislative & Executive):
Wagner and Sheets dismiss the historic definition—often pejoratively describing conventional church as a passive "country club," "lecture hall," or "nursing home." To them, the ekklesia is not an institution that merely meets inside a building to worship and listen to a sermon. Instead, it is an active, ongoing earthly government. Its leaders (restored apostles and prophets) do not just shepherd local flocks; they formulate spiritual policy, legislate in the heavenly realm, and oversee cultural spheres.
3. The Function of "Binding and Loosing" (Matthew 16:18–19)
The debate crystallizes around Christ’s commission in Matthew 16, where Jesus mentions the ekklesia alongside the "keys of the kingdom" and "binding and loosing":
| Attribute | Historic Orthodox Ecclesiology | Wagner / Sheets NAR Ecclesiology |
| Primary Identity | Worshipping assembly; holy priesthood; body/bride of Christ. | Legislative council; spiritual parliament; cultural task force. |
| "Keys of the Kingdom" | The preaching of the Gospel and ecclesiastical discipline (declaring sins remitted or retained). | Judicial authority to govern earthly and heavenly atmospheres; authorizing or prohibiting societal events. |
| "Binding and Loosing" | Rabbinic idiom: Authoritative doctrinal verdicts and ethical/disciplinary boundaries in the local congregation. | Spiritual warfare mechanism: Directly commanding demons to vacate territories and commanding civil/political outcomes to materialize. |
| "Gates of Hades" | Defensive warfare: Satan's kingdom (death/decay) cannot withstand or imprison Christ's resurrected Church. | Offensive siege: The Church actively assaults, overrules, and replaces corrupt institutional governments. |
4. Kingdom Mandate: Pilgrim People vs. Earthly Rulers
Historic Ecclesiology (The Pilgrim Church):
Historic Christianity generally maintains an eschatological tension between the "already" and the "not yet." The Church is an embassy of an otherworldly kingdom—strangers, exiles, and pilgrims residing temporarily within secular kingdoms (1 Peter 2:11). The Church transforms culture bottom-up through individual regeneration, sacrificial service, suffering, and moral witness, awaiting the literal return of Christ to consummate the Kingdom.
The Wagner/Sheets Ecclesiology (Dominion Mandate):Under the influence of Christian Reconstructionism and the Seven Mountain Mandate, Wagner and Sheets view the ekklesia as the instrument designed to take back Adam’s forfeited dominion over the physical earth. Because Christ holds all authority, the Church, as His executive branch, must establish top-down dominion over civil government, media, education, and economy. In this framework, Christ will not return until the ekklesia has subdued worldly resistance and discipled the nations into visible theocratic alignment.
Exegetical and Scholarly Critique
Mainstream evangelical, Reformed, and historical scholars criticize the Wagner/Sheets definition as an etymological fallacy (an anachronistic reading of secular Athenian democracy into Jewish-Messianic texts). They argue that:
Jesus and the early disciples were grounded in Second Temple Judaism, not Greek municipal bureaucracy. When Christ said "I will build my ekklesia," Jewish listeners would immediately hear the echoes of the assembly of the Lord at Mount Sinai, not the political assembly at Athens.
Nowhere in the New Testament epistles are local congregations instructed to legislate national policies, depose Roman territorial rulers, or govern city infrastructure; they are consistently exhorted to endure persecution, pray for magistrates (1 Timothy 2:1–2), live quiet lives (1 Thessalonians 4:11), and maintain internal doctrinal purity.
To hear Dutch Sheets unpack his understanding of the church's governing role directly, see Christ's Ekklesia | Give Him 15. This teaching provides an example of Dutch Sheets walking through the Matthew 16 passage and defining the ekklesia as an authoritative, legislative body.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The origin of the Seven Mountain Mandate traces back to a pivotal encounter in 1975 between two prominent evangelical leaders: Loren Cunningham (founder of Youth With A Mission, or YWAM) and Dr. Bill Bright (founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, now known as Cru).
Though initially conceived as an evangelistic strategy to reach societal gatekeepers, it was later adopted and radicalized by New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) theologians into a blueprint for cultural and political dominion.
1. The 1975 Independent Revelations
According to the foundational narrative recounted by Cunningham (notably in his 1988 book Making Jesus Lord) and supported by Bright's accounts, both men independently received the exact same strategic blueprint from God within days of each other:
Loren Cunningham’s Experience: While praying at a borrowed cabin in the Colorado Rockies, Cunningham detailed how a list spontaneously came to his mind detailing the core categories of society that needed to be targeted to turn nations to God. He wrote them down on a piece of paper and put it in his pocket.
Bill Bright’s Experience: Around the exact same time, Bill Bright was separately led to believe that God wanted to target specific, influential segments of society to accelerate the Great Commission.
When the two men met shortly afterward, Cunningham pulled the paper from his pocket. To their mutual astonishment, they discovered they had independently outlined the exact same spheres of societal influence. (Swiss theologian Francis Schaeffer of the L'Abri Fellowship is also frequently cited by proponents as having received a remarkably similar framework around the same period).
2. The Original Seven Spheres
The framework identified the foundational pillars that shape human culture and consciousness. To transform a nation, they argued, Christians must penetrate and influence these distinct "mountains":
Religion
Family
Education
Government
Media
Arts & Entertainment
Business
3. The Original Intent: Proclamation vs. Later Co-Option
The initial formulation by Cunningham and Bright was missiological rather than explicitly political or coercive. Their goal was to use these spheres as strategic entry points for traditional evangelism—encouraging Christians to become leaders and influencers within secular fields to "salt" culture and bring people to faith. Bright, in particular, viewed it through the lens of proclaiming the Gospel to cultural gatekeepers.
However, the concept underwent a profound evolution decades later:
The NAR and Dominionism: In the late 1990s and 2000s, figures associated with the New Apostolic Reformation—such as C. Peter Wagner, Lance Wallnau, and Johnny Enlow—seized upon the Seven Mountains framework.
From Influence to Control: They stripped away the purely evangelistic intent and merged the concept with Dominion Theology. Rather than merely influencing culture, the revised mandate insisted that modern apostles, prophets, and believers must actively conquer and control the top tiers of these institutions to establish the Kingdom of God on earth before Christ's return.
-----------------------------------------------
The origin of the Seven Mountain Mandate traces back to a pivotal encounter in 1975 between two prominent evangelical leaders: Loren Cunningham (founder of Youth With A Mission, or YWAM) and Dr. Bill Bright (founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, now known as Cru).
Though initially conceived as an evangelistic strategy to reach societal gatekeepers, it was later adopted and radicalized by New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) theologians into a blueprint for cultural and political dominion.
1. The 1975 Independent Revelations
According to the foundational narrative recounted by Cunningham (notably in his 1988 book Making Jesus Lord) and supported by Bright's accounts, both men independently received the exact same strategic blueprint from God within days of each other:
Loren Cunningham’s Experience: While praying at a borrowed cabin in the Colorado Rockies, Cunningham detailed how a list spontaneously came to his mind detailing the core categories of society that needed to be targeted to turn nations to God. He wrote them down on a piece of paper and put it in his pocket.
Bill Bright’s Experience: Around the exact same time, Bill Bright was separately led to believe that God wanted to target specific, influential segments of society to accelerate the Great Commission.
When the two men met shortly afterward, Cunningham pulled the paper from his pocket. To their mutual astonishment, they discovered they had independently outlined the exact same spheres of societal influence. (Swiss theologian Francis Schaeffer of the L'Abri Fellowship is also frequently cited by proponents as having received a remarkably similar framework around the same period).
2. The Original Seven Spheres
The framework identified the foundational pillars that shape human culture and consciousness. To transform a nation, they argued, Christians must penetrate and influence these distinct "mountains":
Religion
Family
Education
Government
Media
Arts & Entertainment
Business
3. The Original Intent: Proclamation vs. Later Co-Option
The initial formulation by Cunningham and Bright was missiological rather than explicitly political or coercive. Their goal was to use these spheres as strategic entry points for traditional evangelism—encouraging Christians to become leaders and influencers within secular fields to "salt" culture and bring people to faith. Bright, in particular, viewed it through the lens of proclaiming the Gospel to cultural gatekeepers.
However, the concept underwent a profound evolution decades later:
The NAR and Dominionism: In the late 1990s and 2000s, figures associated with the New Apostolic Reformation—such as C. Peter Wagner, Lance Wallnau, and Johnny Enlow—seized upon the Seven Mountains framework.
From Influence to Control: They stripped away the purely evangelistic intent and merged the concept with Dominion Theology. Rather than merely influencing culture, the revised mandate insisted that modern apostles, prophets, and believers must actively conquer and control the top tiers of these institutions to establish the Kingdom of God on earth before Christ's return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment