After the events of the last 10 days, some Christian policy organizations are circling back to how Christians should respond to the new Republican Party Platform. Today, David uses Isaiah and John Owen to probe whether observations made by one prominent national organization go deeply enough in explaining how 45 years of work were, in its words, “wiped out in hours.”

Changes in the Republican Party’s platform’s planks regarding abortion and marriage riled Christian political advocates who actively sought a minority report with different language. But did they read the Preamble? Today, David explains why he thinks its provisions represent the best of humanistic hubris and explain why abortion and marriage were left to walk the proverbial plank.

In his discussion of the ruler’s function, Peter tells persecuted Christians to “do good.” Is that limited to doing good deeds, or can his exhortation apply to how one does politics and drafts legislation? David says it includes the latter and gives real life examples from the last few years to demonstrate what the “good” is and isn’t in relation to a Biblical anthropology.

As noted last week, the metaphysics of law and sin are first seen in the opening chapters of Genesis and more clearly revealed in Romans. But what are we to make of the exhortations by both Paul and Peter to overcome evil rulers by doing good? Are these exhortations the eternal word of God or mere artifacts of a different time in history? In other words, now we need organized political effort that give us the power to enact better laws.

The Apostle Peter gives us description of rulers that helps us evaluate those who hold office in all three branches of our civil government. The result isn’t pretty. But his recommendation for how to respond to “ignorant fools” in public office seems wrong and is at odds with what we think and do today. But if God’s word is true and eternal, does that mean we’re missing something? Is it in our understanding of how the Bible speaks of law and sin?

Dr. Al Mohler said this week that there will be  “two rival understandings of reality facing off” in the November elections. Is that true?  David asks and answers several questions about the nature of law that probe the accuracy of Mohler’s assessment. More importantly, is there evidence that evangelical Christianity doesn’t even present a rival understanding of reality to that held by the Democratic and Republican parties.

The conviction of former President Donald Trump generated lots of comments about the rule of law. Some said it was the end of the rule of law and others said it was demonstrative of the rule of law. What if neither observation is correct? David uses the thoughts of Lord Henry deBracton, the father of the common law, to examine rule of law and in what sense, if any, it exists today.

David recounts a recent conversation with a member of Congress on pending legislation that demonstrates what happens when Christians are not discipled well in the faith and in the law respecting their office. No “Christian America” will come from such leaders. But it will come if Christians understand what Ezekiel 36 teaches about how God brings a once-Christian nation not just from captivity but to restoration and advancement.

Theonomy is predicated on the Triune God but it pertains to a certain cosmology. So, how are Christians to think of theonomy and its application in relation to a legal system the structure and content of which are now divorced from both its history and the cosmology that gave rise to it? David tackles that subject with a new two-part thesis for “applied theonomy.”

Christians who have been unengaged in politics are now beginning to engage. So, why would the host of one of David’s favorite podcasts suggest many of them are “mucking up everything?” David provides an answer by explaining a key issue period in Medieval Christendom discussed in that podcast and by tying it to a key U.S. Supreme Court decision, and to observations about law by Hale Institute director Jeff Shafer.