Crucified Hearts

The following essay was generated through a series of Perplexity AI prompts exploring the difference between church mission exemplified in the Book of Acts and the claims of Dominionist Theology, a theology underpinning the Seven Mountains Mandate (7MM), and the wider Christian Nationalist movement in America.

——-

The Book of Acts opens with a clear mission: Jesus commissions His disciples to “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). That single verse defined the orientation of the early church for centuries. Their purpose was to multiply disciples through the power of the Holy Spirit—not to seize cultural, political, or economic power.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and a very different narrative has emerged: the Seven Mountains Mandate, a modern movement within dominionist theology claiming that Christians are called to take control of seven cultural “mountains”—government, education, business, media, arts, family, and religion—in order to establish God’s kingdom on earth. Proponents insist that until believers “occupy” these arenas of influence, Christ cannot return.

So what happened between Acts and today’s dominion-minded Christianity? And does any so-called “progressive revelation” justify such a dramatic shift in mission and theology?

The Early Church’s Mission: Witness, Not Warfare

The early Christians understood Jesus’ words about the kingdom literally: it was not of this world. When questioned by Pilate, Jesus said, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (John 18:36). The apostles followed this logic completely. Their “kingdom work” was spiritual, not political; redemptive, not revolutionary.

Their strategy was simple but subversive: change the world by changing human hearts. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles carried the message of a risen Christ across empires, yet never sought to overturn those empires by force or control. When ordered by authorities to stop preaching, Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men”—and then returned to evangelizing. They wielded no political weapons, but the gospel itself became their revolution.

Paul captured this vision in Philippians 3:20: “But our citizenship is in heaven.” The early church defined identity not through nationality or empire, but through belonging to Christ. Their eschatology—belief in the soon return of Jesus—fueled urgency for mission, not a plan to “Christianize” Rome. Dominion, to them, meant the rule of Christ in human hearts transformed by grace.

The Seven Mountains: Dominion by Another Name

By contrast, the Seven Mountains Mandate redefines mission as the conquest of cultural power. Emerging in the 1970s through leaders like Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright, and later popularized by Lance Wallnau and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the movement teaches that Christians must “take dominion” over seven societal spheres to usher in Christ’s return.

In their view, the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20) is not merely a call to make disciples but a blueprint for societal takeover. Wallnau reframed evangelism into “cultural influence,” arguing that Christians are to lead every major institution until nations conform to God’s laws.

But this reading stretches scripture beyond recognition. The “seven mountains” in Revelation 17:9 refer symbolically to oppressive world powers—most likely ancient Rome—not to modern cultural sectors awaiting Christian CEOs. Linking that imagery to a global leadership mandate is a textbook example of reading our agendas into God’s Word rather than letting Scripture interpret itself.

Premillennial Hope vs. Postmillennial Domination

The theological roots of dominion teaching lie in postmillennialism, which envisions a future “golden age” of Christian rule before Christ returns. This outlook claims that human effort, empowered by the Spirit, will eventually convert the world and set the stage for Jesus’ physical reign.

The early church, however, embraced premillennial hope—Christ returns first to restore justice and establish His kingdom. They expected persecution, not political triumph, viewing suffering for the gospel as participation in Christ’s victory. The difference between these eschatological perspectives explains why one inspires humility and service while the other fuels triumphalism and control.

The Seven Mountains model thus inverts early Christian priorities: instead of waiting faithfully for the King, it rushes to build the kingdom without the King.

The Illusion of “Progressive Revelation”

Some proponents claim that modern apostles and prophets have received new revelations to guide this end-time strategy. But historical Christianity affirms a closed canon—the Bible contains the complete revelation of God necessary for faith and doctrine.

Church fathers like Hippolytus and Jerome taught that prophetic revelation ceased with the apostles because the deposit of faith was complete. Contemporary “new apostolic” claims fail this test. The apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, authenticated by miracles. No modern figure meets those criteria, and repeated prophetic failures—such as the false “prophecies” surrounding U.S. elections—reveal the fragility of this so-called revelation.

To call the Seven Mountains strategy a continuation of God’s revelation is to confuse ambition with inspiration.

A Kingdom Not of This World

Jesus intentionally distanced His kingdom from worldly power because political coercion corrupts the soul of faith. When the church aligns with the state—or tries to rule the state—it loses its prophetic voice. Ellen White captured this danger powerfully: “The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight… does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.”

Seventh-day Adventist theology, long an outlier to dominionist thinking, maintains a clear warning: any claim to “build the kingdom” through politics contradicts the gospel’s voluntary nature. True reform begins in the heart; the gospel changes the world not by legislating righteousness but by revealing Christ’s love through transformed lives.

Conclusion: The Spirit of Mission or the Spirit of Power?The divergence between the early church and dominion theology is more than generational—it’s spiritual.

* The early church advanced by witness and suffering;

* The dominionist movement advances by influence and control.

* One trusts the return of Christ;

*The other attempts to bring Him back through conquest.

There has been no “progressive revelation” authorizing this shift, only a regressive yearning for power dressed up as prophecy. The same Jesus who refused an earthly crown still calls His followers to bear a cross, not a scepter.

The early believers changed history not by taking the seven mountains, but by lifting up one name. That remains the church’s only mountain worth climbing.