Tier 1: Discussion on Readings

(1) What virtues do you see in Tom Carson that are worthy of emulation?

His perseverance/endurance even through times where it seemed like there was not much visible fruit. His love of prayer of which he said “the main source of strength.” His pastoral investment into his flock and the car he showed his congregation. His commitment to the Word and to the will of God and to his reliance on God. His great love and care for his wife. There is so much to emulate from him.

(2) What were Tom Carson's weaknesses, and how can we learn from them?

It was said that he struggled with prioritization which may have contributed to some stagnation in his ministry. Perhaps we should know ourselves well enough to trust others to help us when we fall into these things. I can imagine someone inquiring about shifting his focus, it would have been helpful if he had accepted the advice. It was also said of him that he was too hard on himself in unrealistic ways, which in perfect honesty was quite convincing to read about. This can be a kind of false humility which assumes too much of the self and not enough of God or even others. 

(3) What did you learn from the broader story about the work of the Holy Spirit in Quebec in the mid-to-late 20th century? How can that help inform your ministry moving forward?

One of the most encouraging things was weirdly that it was a struggle and slow going. There were many obstacles which over the course of a lifetime eventually were overcome to a hefty degree when the ministry started to explode. This suggests that we can do with a heart dose of patience. Tom at one point said that he stayed because he knew God’s people were there, this reminder that it is the power of God for His chosen people is great encouragement. 

(4) What is one question you have to contribute to our discussion?

How do we discern when a path is “God closing a door” or “God asking us to endure”?

(1) Briefly compare and contrast the following theories of government:

• The "two swords" view (Pope Gelasius)

• The "two kingdoms" view (Magisterial Reformation)

• The Anabaptist view

• The "social contract" view (Locke)

Two Swords: Gelasius argued for two "swords," one given to the state for secular jurisdiction, and the other possessed by the church for sacred jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly, as a pope, he viewed the church's sword as of greater value and therefore held the priority over the state's.

Two Kingdoms: Reformers viewed the "right-hand" as a spiritual kingdom and the "left-hand" as an earthly kingdom. The left-hand kingdom includes man-made laws binding over external actions (and for Luther, the visible church), while conscience was exclusively to be governed by God in the right-hand kingdom (the invisible church). While the right-hand kingdom is permitted to restrain and punish evil by threat or use of force, any attempted suppression of conscience is viewed as unacceptable.

Anabaptist: The Anabaptists held a sharp distinction between church and state, seeking instead for the church to hold the main authority in order to make the visible church match the invisible church.

Social Contract: This view holds that certain rights and freedoms are unalienable and given by God and that the purpose of government is to punish the violation of these rights and freedoms. Governments therefore exist contractually in an agreement between them and people. Upon the violation of these rights, the people have a right to rebel. Its origins can be seen in the works of Calvin, though they were somewhat secularized by John Locke.

(2) What is your understanding of the biblical teaching on the authority of government and the relationship between church and state? What key biblical passages inform your understanding?

In Romans 13, serious weight to relationships of human authority such as parents, governments, and church leaders on the basis of them being appointed by God. It is also not uncommon in "vice lists," such as in 2 Timothy, for those who are disobedient to these authorities to be listed. Combined with the generic nature of the Noahic covenant, I understand the authority of God to be supreme, with authority to government being of high priority. The specifics I'll get into more with #3.

(3) What is your view of resistance theory? Is resistance to government authority ever justified, and if so, under what conditions and in what manners may it be carried out?

Unless one wants to argue that Christianity should have never existed, resistance to government must be justified at some level. I believe that the obvious conditions to disobey are when they require disobedience to God (ex: Daniel being told to bow to Haman) or prohibit obedience to Him (ex: any country where Christianity is illegal). However, there are cases where government overreach does not reach that extreme and is still harmful.

Government is established by God with one of its main purposes of punishing evil (Rom 13). When they stray from this purpose by rewarding it and punishing good, it is threatening, but Scripture does not say that every and all forms of governmental evil warrant rebellion. I view the right to rebel similarly to divorce: there are clear grounds to do it, and perhaps clear grounds where it must be done, but the area leading up to it is moral grey area that must be navigated with wisdom. Keeping government from growing too unnecessarily large allows its capacity for overreach to be lessened.

(4) How does your view of resistance theory apply to what churches experienced during the 2020 pandemic?

I understand that governments will frequently take an inch and stretch it a mile, but humans are also known for being unreasonably rebellious to appointed authorities, so I do not think there is "one side of the horse" that is better to fall off on. We are to have attitudes of obedience to appointed authorities while remaining ultimately obedient to God, the highest authority, which requires great levels of wisdom.

Several cities, laws, and politicians gave great examples of the grey area above that I mentioned, with a few extending into the prohibiting obedience category. In more extreme cases where worship gatherings were banned outright with reasonable precautions (I underline that qualifier to ensure it gets read), I would have fully supported civil disobedience.

I typically complied with more lower level infractions of liberty, such as mask mandates, unless someone had a specific issue that would not allow them to. This obedience, however, is not the same thing as advocating for the government's right to do it. It is a matter of picking battles. I personally obeyed because I did not believe I had much reason to disobey, but if I knew someone who morally felt torn about obeying the government for a specific reason, I would have heard it out.

(5) What is one question you have to contribute to our discussion?

How do we respond to someone who says we should have a "general posture of obedience/optimism" or a "general posture of disobedience/skepticism" with government? Is one right or wrong?

Additionally, at what point is allegiance to a political party or opinion too dominating?

VanDrunen, "Politics After Christendom"

(1) Explain and evaluate VanDrunen's view of how the biblical covenants apply to political theology.

VanDrunen claims that the noahic covenant, as the updated covenant of works, is the only covenant that directly applies to the whole world, and which has an earthly end, and therefore the only covenant that is relevant to the function of politics since political systems have an earthly end and as such does not need a specifically christian/salvific participant to be legitimate. All the other covenants are for believers with an eternal end and therefore they do not hold precedence over political affairs. That being said VanDrunen is clear that this separation/pseudo two kingdom theology does not separate political affairs from God, not only because of the Noahic covenant but also because of natural law and human reason which are from God.

(2) Explain and evaluate VanDrunen's claim that civil government is both legitimate and provisional. Contrast this view with other forms of political theology.

I liked VanDrunen here. He claims that 

(3) What role should natural law have in a political theology?

To some degree it is unavoidable, that being said I personally think its role should be as small as possible because it relies on a twofold weakness concerning the fall: creation itself is distorted and our ability to discern creation is warped. When I say should I do not imply necessity or a prerequisite for legitimacy but simply that it ought to as a means of being the best situation. 

(4) Are governments obligated to protect religious liberty? Explain.

Strictly speaking no, at least as a means of legitimacy. For starters God called the Roman Empire legitimate even though it banned Christianity, but also because some conceivable religions could, and often do, by their very nature work contrary to justice which is one of the end of the government. 

(5) What are the differences between a monocentric conception of law and a polycentric conception, and what are the implications of holding to one or the other?

A monocentric conception sees the law as centering or emerging from one centerpoint whereas a polycentric conception of law sees the law centering or emerging from multiple foci such that authority exists in a much more complex system where there are multiple spheres of authority interplaying. A monocentric view would tend towards ‘authoritarian’ tendencies where power tends to culminate and polycentric views would tend toward a breaking up of power where certain spheres of life are handled by different institutions. 

(6) What is one question you have to contribute to our discussion?

VanDrunen has a section on nature and grace which I find at best concerning. Is this a necessary part of his system? Also, as it stands I think he is wrong on that point, is that correct?

(2) How have you seen the mission of the church compromised in recent years? In what ways might it be compromised in the future based on trends you see today? How can we guard the church from mission drift?

Perhaps most pervasively I have seen a kind of seeker sensitivity which puts the general pagan/secular culture as the lens to see and understand Scripture rather than Scripture itself. This manifests in many ways and seems to center on a warped sexual ethic. Because of this I think the church will follow the culture as it develops and it seems to be headed toward a more openly and unashamed paganism, so I foresee the liberal “churches” to head more toward a kind of polytheism with a ‘preference’ for Jesus. A few other ways I have seen the church err is with the social gospel and with legalism. I think the Church can guard against this by holding fast to Christ in a commitment to His word and by unashamedly denouncing ‘churches’ which compromise Christ.