Tier 1: Discussion on Readings

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?