Despite what things Piper gets wrong these days, this statement is correct. The bible expressly says that our citizenship is in heaven. God does not offer dual citizenship beloved. This world is not our home. Read the key verses today! We are supposed to be sojourners and exiles in this world! An exile by definition is not in their own land! A sojourner is merely passing through. There is no getting around these texts! Quoting other dominionists does not make his argument any more factual or biblical. He then offers some opposing quotes but I am not here to litigate what other humans had to say on the matter. The only thing of import is what God has said. We pick up Demar's arguments here:
"This world is the Christian's home. We were born here. God wants us here. We live here. Our homes are here. We work here. We've been a part of God's created order since Adam and Eve. To claim otherwise is to deny the Bible and all common sense. While our ultimate citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), it didn't stop Paul from appealing to his earthly citizenship, including his Roman citizenship (Acts 21:39; 22:25-29). God saved us in the here and now. We are to live in terms of this world created by God and declared by Him to be "very good" (Gen. 1:31), which has not been declared otherwise because of sin (1 Tim. 4:3-5)." -- Gary DeMar
The opening statements here while correct do not exist in a vacuum. We may reside here but that does not make this our home. That is a logical fallacy. While we clearly live here we all know this is but temporary. While it is true that we descend from Adam and Eve, they lived in paradise with God. That was the intent until the fall. DeMar seems fond of making declarative statements without any biblical offering of support. I see why because when he does venture into scripture he only makes a fool of himself. Yes Paul did appeal his citizenship on earth at the end of Acts chapter 21 but only so he could preach the Gospel to those who wanted to kill him in Acts 22! Then as they were to flog him, he asked them if that they were doing was legal, which it was not. He used his earthly citizenship to proclaim eternal matters of the kingdom, not to influence culture one iota.
"What about this passage? For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come (Heb. 13:14). The physical city of Jerusalem was still standing. There is a better city, a permanent city that we've already come to, "the heavenly city" (Heb. 12:22-24). The world is our inheritance in the here and now (Matt. 5:5). There is no longer any need for a physical city, a stone temple, and daily animal sacrifices. Our sacrifice "is praise to God" (13:15) of redemption accomplished. This does not mean that we do not have a more permanent home in the future when we die. "To live is Christ; to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21). Until then, we are to live in this God-owned world as His stewards. Until our earthly tent is torn down, we are to live out our salvation in this world (2 Cor. 5:1)." -- Gary DeMar
Matthew 5:5 says the meek shall inherit the earth. the better translation is "the land" as this was a common refrain of blessing for the Jewish people dating back to inheriting the Promised Land. Either way, inheriting is by definition a future occurrence not as DeMar fancies -- in the here and now. That is straight up dominionism. To believe that God wants us to conquer the earth. He wants no such thing. The great thing about debunking NAR adherents is they understand scripture so poorly they cannot see when the verses they cite hurt their cause. 2Corinthians 5:1 testifies to the temporary nature of our existence here on earth, It assures us that if, not until, our earthly tent is torn down that we have a permanent one awaiting us where we actually live -- in heaven. We are stewards of the Gospel, not some carnal property here in America. DeMar now launches into a bunny trail meant to distract. This one is about the humanistic public education system and he decries those that would not seek to infiltrate culture while sending their kids to public schools for indoctrination. To this point I agree. Christians would be far better served homeschooling if possible but again this has ZERO to do with this conversation.
'Theodore Roszak used an apt phrase to describe much of modern-day Christianity: "Socially irrelevant, even if privately engaging." It wasn't always this way: The Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, comes out of the background of a Hebrew mindset. The basic idea behind the Hebrew mindset is that God and accompanying spiritual principles permeate all of life here on earth". I believe one of the causes of [cultural disengagement is a Greek mindset], which tells us Christians should be concerned about saving souls and going to heaven rather than paying much attention to material things like transforming our societies. [James Davidson] Hunter, to the contrary says, "Most Christians in history have interpreted the creation mandate in Genesis as a mandate to change the world."' -- Gary DeMar
Half-way through I am getting the shtick here from DeMar. He is filling this article with footnote references that support his view. More than half the scripture references he uses are not germane to the discussion at hand and are presented only to lend a sense of piety to the discussion. When the scripture actually does touch on the subject matter it actually disproves his point. Now, there may be some truth to the fact that Hebrew mindsets were all-permeating regarding their lives within the theocracy they existed in. Conversely, the Christian should also have the things of God permeate all facets of their individual lives. The problem DeMar is facing is that Hebrew culture did not demand an influence in society surrounding them. Outside of going to war, God never instructs the Hebrews to try and make the heathen secular surroundings more Jewish. There is no mandate from Jewish history for the church to conquer or even influence culture. There just isn't. With any due respect to Mr. Hunter, most Christians have not interpreted the Genesis creation mandate as a mandate to change the world. Jesus sure didn't. His disciples sure didn't. only in the heart of a dominionist.
The remainder of Demar's arguments can be read at the link. They offer no further biblical commentary on the issue at hand. I do not wish to chase DeMar down any more rabbit holes of eschatology as he seems to be arguing that many Christians choose to not influence society merely because we know the end is always impending. He misses the point as usual. The NAR dominionist believes that it is the job of Christians to engage in behavior modification. To influence entertainment for example to exclude the gratuitous violence and sex that has become much of the modern entertainment business. To influence education so that unsaved masses recite prayers that can not get them saved. To influence politics and government to eliminate ungodly laws and make sure all Wal-Mart greeters say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. What they fail to see is that behavior modification saves no one. Even if you stop all unsaved people from engaging in what you deem as decidedly unchristian and baby Jesus is back in the public manger display, you still accomplished absolutely nothing. All of those people remain unsaved. Reciting "under God"; which was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s, saves no one. Even if you convinced Hollywood that only the Kendrick Bothers and Roma Downey should be allowed to make movies, you still saved no one (not to mention their theology is way off anyway).
