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.

A recent interview of an evangelical pastor disappointed by his friend, Virginia Governor Youngkin, signing a same-sex “marriage” bill into law reveals how Christian discipleship falls short, not just with those wanting to hold office, but often with the pastors and policy organizations supporting them. David explains why what may sound and look good to many people in the pews too often turns out so disappointing.

The floundering of the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade was reversed provides the context for David asking in today’s episode, “What makes for a Christian community, state, or nation, and where in that process do righteous civil laws come into play?” In answer, David offers for consideration a thesis drawn from a re-examination of the Great Commission in Matthew 28.

Today, David talks about how discipling a nation (Matthew 28:19) might look different from what is being done today in law and public policy. He uses a statement made on the Tennessee House floor this week by an influential Christian Republican to show what he thinks is missing. He also offers part of a speech he recently gave to a group of Christian lawyers and policy leaders as a way forward.

God promised “nations” would come from Abraham and Jesus told his disciples to disciple the nations. With that in mind, David uses scripture and some observations from Choc Knox and Jason Farley (Knox Unplugged) to explain how this kind of “nation building” is influencing the focus of his work in law and politics.