"There's nobody that I know - there may be some fringe people - who would even advocate a theocracy," Wagner said in a phone interview from Colorado Springs, Colo., where his ministries are based. "We honor those who have other kinds of faith."

Here is how independent journalist Greg Metzger, who has been researching and writing in this area, rebutted  similar assertions by Wagner made during a recent interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air.   He looked first to the sources the AP later ignored.    

Wagner said on Fresh Air:  

"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."

Metzger responded first by pointing out that Tabachnick reported (on October 4th) that Wagner said something very different at an NAR event in 2008.  

"Dominion has to do with control. Dominion has to do with rulership.  Dominion has to do with authority and subduing and it relates to society. In other words, what the values are in Heaven need to be made manifest here on earth. Dominion means being the head and not the tail. Dominion means ruling as kings. It says in Revelation Chapter 1:6 that He has made us kings and priests - and check the rest of that verse; it says for dominion. So we are kings for dominion."

Then Metzger highlights a quote from Wagner's 2008 book titled, Dominion!: How Kingdom Action Can Change the World,  in which he explains why he uses the term dominion and explicitly places himself in the tradition of the seminal thinker of theocratic dominionism, R.J. Rushdoony:

The practical theology that best builds a foundation under social transformation is dominion theology, sometimes called "Kingdom now."  Its history can be traced through R.J. Rushdoony and Abraham Kuyper to John Calvin. Some of the notable pioneering attempts to apply it in our day have been made by Bob Weiner, Rice Broocks, Dennis Peacocke and others. Unfortunately, the term dominion theology has had to navigate some rough waters in the recent past.  A number of my friends, in fact, attempted to dissuade me from using dominion in the title of this book, fearing that some might reject the whole book just because of the title.

One does not have to take the view that Wagner's views are identical to those of Rushdoony to show that he is so deeply conversant with Rushdoony's work that he chose place himself in his immediate theological wake.  Metzger writes:

Wagner has chosen to call his views dominion theology not in spite of major objections to Rushdoony but because of what he sees as his faithful application of Rushdoony's dominion theology.

Tabachnick, writing in response to an earlier pooh poohing of dominionism and NAR also drew on Wagner's book on dominionism, observing:

C. Peter Wagner, the major architect of the movement, writes that theocracy will not be necessary in order to take dominion, and that it can be achieved inside a democratic framework. He uses language that is less threatening than the legalistic tome of Rushdoony's 1973 The Institutes of Biblical Law.  Wagner states in his 2008 book Dominion!,

   

"The rules of the democratic game open the doors for Christians, as well as for non-Christians who have Kingdom values, to move into positions of leadership influential enough to shape the whole nation from top to bottom."

Under the heading "The Majority Rules," Wagner adds,

   

"If a majority feels that heterosexual marriage is the best choice for a happy and prosperous society, those in the minority should agree to conform - not because they live in a theocracy, but because they live in a democracy.  The most basic principle of democracy is that the majority, not the minority, rules and sets the ultimate norms for society.

The term theocracy can have an archaic and ominous feel to it, but Wagner, like others in the contemporary Christian Right, understand that many theocratic ends can be achieved in alliance with like minded people on selected matters, through ostensibly democratic means. Wagner seeks to neutralize public concern about his vision and his methods, by disingenuously redefining both democracy and theocracy to suit his purposes.  Wagner can run from his view by turning terms with clear meanings into a fog of vagueness -- but he cannot hide his ambitious vision of conservative Christian supremacy in all areas of life including politics and government.  

One does not have to look very far into the "extensive research" at Talk to Action or into the works of C. Peter Wagner to find these things.