Vol. 1: On Government, the Church, and Christian Civil Disobedience


This is what the LORD says, “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom
or the strong boast of their strength
or the rich boast of their riches,
but let the one who boasts boast about this:
that they have the understanding to know me.
That I am the LORD who exercises
kindness, justice, and righteousness on the earth,
for in these I delight,” declares the LORD. –Jer. 9:23-24, NIV


Introduction to White Paper

As the author of this paper, I need to say something about myself and my background before introducing the occasion and purpose of this white paper. I am an educated lay minister in a local ECCA church, where I have been an active member for the last 30 years, in which I taught Sunday School, Adults and Children, sat on various church committees, did some visitation at senior citizens residences, and sang with the church choir. I earned a B.B.S. degree from Western Bible College in 1980, with a Pastoral Theology Major. And in 1987, I earned a B.A. from Colorado Christian University, with a Historiography Major and a Computer Science Minor. And I have published articles on various theological topics and issues, serving as the Assistant Editor of The Journal of Biblical Equality, 1986-1990. So, having said something about my identity and background, now on as to why I have written this paper.

As the Trump regime seeks to dismantle our current Constitutional federal government and replace it with a fascist oligarchy, it is important to formulate a Christian socio-political theology to stand against and counteract this rising anti-democratic tide in our nation. For, like Pat Kanke, David French, Elizabeth Neuman, and Timothy Albright, I see that this authoritarian regime not only poses a dangerous threat to constitutional democracy and the rule of law in America, but also the spiritual health and well-being of true Christianity. In this short paper, I will outline how the Christian community has responded to the larger, non-Christian community in which it has found itself; examine the nature and calling of both the government and the Christian community; then, drawing from the socio-political teachings of Issac Backus, Abraham Kuyper, N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, and others, formulate some basic principles of a Christian socio-political theology that is firmly grounded in Scripture, is rationally consistent and coherent, and is both relevant and practical for our current situation. However, this paper should be regarded as an introduction to key concepts, questions, and issues that will be more fully explored in a second paper. Consequently, the present paper is not intended, nor purports to be a full and definitive statement of Christian Socio-Political Theology.

I. The Historical Response of the Christian Community to the Secular World

When we consider how the Christian community is to relate to the non-Christian social and political order in which it finds itself, there are several questions that must be asked: How should Christians relate to nonbelievers? How involved should disciples of Christ become in the institutions and socio-political affairs of secular society? How much influence should the Christian community seek to exert on the social and political processes outside their community of faith? How politically and socially active should Christians become in the problems of their non-Christian neighbors? Now, throughout its history, given the legal and social status of the Church, Christians have developed various forms of three basic patterns of socio-political teaching: These patterns have been the separation pattern, the domination pattern, and the integration pattern.

The separation patten is characterized by an effort of the Christian community to remain as detached and uninvolved as possible with the secular world. This has meant, in the past, that in the attempt to avoid “contamination,” actual geographical segregation was practiced whenever possible. Hutterite and Old Mennonite communities in rural settings constitute this pattern in modern times, though in the 21st century such geographical segregation has become more difficult in the U.S.

The domination pattern was first attempted in the third century, when Christianity became the legal and dominant religion of the Roman Empire. And during the Protestant Reformation, those religious and civil leaders in the group known as the Magisterial Reformers (e.g. John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Huldreich Zwingli) tended to promote this pattern. Characteristically, those civil leaders who openly affiliated themselves with the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church tried to use the power of the State to make that form of Christianity and its socio-political views the norm for their citizens. Consequently, discriminating against, oppressing, and even persecuting those who were dissenters and/or regarded as heretics was rife. “Historically, the price exacted of dissenters in the successful domination of Christian thought and practice has been a heavy one. Dissenters have been suppressed, even persecuted. If they were tolerated, they were often sequestered in ghettos to eliminate all unnecessary contact with the Christian world.”(1)

It is a fact that the American Founding Fathers, aware of the evils of this pattern, wisely moved to protect dissent, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom for lawful assembly in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So, it should be no surprise that the Trump regime, which is intolerant of any dissent to its political, social and cultural agenda, is seeking to gut our rights under the First Amendment. That is why we must resist this regime in every lawful way we can.

The integration pattern is based on the premise that if the Christian faith is to thrive and have meaningful significance in the world, it must remain in dialogical and consular contact with non-Christian society and culture. “This ‘dialogical’ relationship with the world does not mean abandonment or compromise of traditional Christian doctrine; instead, it means mature application of Jesus’ dictum that his disciples are to be in the world, although not of the world.”(2) It seeks not only to bring authentic Christian views and values to the world, but to the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And it is from this third paradigm that I will be weaving this Christian political theology I am seeking to establish. Moreover, it is these key spiritual and moral teachings of Jesus, taken from the Gospel of Matthew, that form the ethical strata of the theology being developed herein: “Love the Lord your God with your whole being, love your neighbor as you love yourself, and in all situations treat others as you would want yourself to be treated, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

As we consider the present state of both the American political system, and the American Church today, the decay and brokenness of each is evident. For, in terms of the Church being “salt and light” in our society, much is left to be desired. This is due, in part, because we Christians in America have forgotten our history and have a poor understanding of the Church’s place and mission in the world. This situation is outlined by Perry C. Cotham as follows:

“A look at American church history indicates that evangelical Christians have been ambivalent about their role in and relationship to the world. Timothy L. Smith and David O. Moberg have written of the evangelical social activism of the late nineteenth century; they point out that evangelicals played a major role in both social welfare and social reconstruction. Among the organizations evangelicals helped to found were the Salvation Army, the Florence Crittenton homes, schools for immigrants, industrial training institutes, antislavery and temperance societies, and many associations, programs, and services for the underprivileged and culturally deprived. Evangelicals also established schools and colleges at the heart of whose curricula was a concern for ‘moral philosophy’ and ‘the moral government of God.’ They believed that God’s universal sovereignty made it comparative to conform all aspects of society to God’s moral law and so, instead of confining themselves to individual acts of charity, they attempted to get at the root causes of frustration, suffering and poverty.

“The early twentieth century saw evangelicals completely shift their attitude away from social and political activism, a shift that has been called ‘the great reversal.’ Support for some of the institutions and programs waned and many projects were abandoned. New Testament ethics were deemed largely, if not entirely, individualist. Old, persistent problems like the liquor traffic and alcoholism were attacked almost exclusively in terms of personal salvation, without regard for social conditions. The causes for this almost 180-degree turn were several: Renewed concern for biblical doctrine, the continuing ideological conflict between the fundamentalists and modernists, the association of social activism with the social gospel (which was deemed to be little more than humanistic optimism), and the movement of evangelicals into the liberal camp.”(3)

Then, beginning in 1947 and lasting for at least another forty years, under the influence of the Holy Spirit and through the leadership and ministry of varied figures such as Carl F. Henry, Charles Colson, Stephen C. Mott, John R. Stott, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Perkins, E. Margaret Howe, Catherine C. Kroeger, Ronald J. Sider, etc.—evangelical concern for the elimination of misogyny, racism, social injustice, and a more positive Christian influence on American politics and culture began to make genuine progress. As Carl F. Henry himself said, “During the past twenty years evangelical Protestantism has steadily sought to recover lost ground in the realm of social concern. The tiny book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) reflected the private conviction of a growing bloc of evangelical leaders that Christianity makes imperative the declaration of biblical religion and ethics in all spheres of life…More and more it became obvious that the evangelical failure to proclaim Christ as Lord of the whole life allowed secular and sub-biblical agencies to pre-empt the spheres of culture for alien points of view.” (4)

However, beginning in the 1980s, a coalition of conservative fundamentalists, extreme Pentecostal groups such as the New Apostolic Reformation movement, and white Christian Nationalists formed in opposition to what they regard as all forms of political and religious “liberalism, progressiveness, and wokeness.” (Their religious and ideological viewpoints can be gleaned from such documents as the Project 2025 manual and Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism.) It is this coalition which, having infiltrated and overtaken the Republican Party, has given rise to the authoritarian shift in government and culture now being promoted by the Trump regime—a shift which not only threatens to undo American democracy and the Rule of Law but also threatens the viability and effectiveness of the Christian churches and their Kingdom mission in America.

Consequently, I have felt compelled to write a Christian socio-political theology that explains why and how we as Christians must resist the evil of movements like Trumpism. But first we must look at what the NT says about the purpose and mission of both Government and the Church.

II. Returning to What Scripture Teaches Regarding the Nature and Mission of the Church and of the Government.

As in all matters, to develop a Christian political theology, we must turn to and mine the New Testament writings. For these are the foundational documents for the Christian Church’s beliefs and practices. And, certainly, the story of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, resurrection, present and coming kingship are at the heart of the Gospel message contained within these documents, which continue to provide a guiding paradigm for the Church’s communal life and mission today (cf. Matt. 28:10-20; Acts 2:22-47).

Yet, as the history of Christianity has demonstrated, certain aspects of Jesus’ story and message have been given some diverse and apparently contradictory explanations and applications. An example of this would be St. Augustine’s use of the Parable of the Great Banquet (Lk. 14:15-24) as the basis for his argument that the Roman State, now allied with the Christian Church, should forcefully “compel” pagans to convert to the Christian faith—in contradiction to Jesus’ own teaching that his kingdom is not established and expanded by military force and political coercion (cf. John 18:31-37). So, as in any serious endeavor, a Christian political theology must be built on a wholistic and systematic examination of Scripture, not isolated “proof texts” divorced from their historical, cultural, and literary context.

A careful study and comparison of Matthew, Luke/Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians, and 1 & 2 Peter reveals that there is an overall unified and harmonious NT understanding that Jesus the Messiah came to redeem and reconcile people to God; to redefine “Israel,” the chosen and holy people of God around himself from a single nation to a global, multiracial, multicultural body where all members are first class citizens, serving the community on the basis of the Spirit’s gifting and calling; that his own life and teaching formed the rule of life for this global body; and that this global body was united, motivated, gifted and empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit to carry on Christ’s mission of reconciliation until the day He returned to set up God’s kingdom in its full manifest glory (also cf. Isa, 42:1-7, 49:1-7, and 61:1-4 with Lk. 4:1-30; 24:13-49; Jn. 11:45-52; Gal. 3:26-4:7; Phil. 1:27-30; Eph. 2:11-22; 1 Pet. 2:4-12; Acts 2; 2 Cor. 5:11-6:1).

Now, in the summary given above regarding Jesus the Messiah and the religious community he founded, it is stated that “[Jesus’] own life and teaching formed the rule of life for this global body,” the Christian Church, as it has existed throughout history. Indeed, several scholars have pointed out that Matthew’s Gospel, among other OT motifs, presents Jesus as the Prophet like Moses (cf. Deut. 18:18-22) whose torah (“teaching, instruction) the whole world would come to trust and accept (cf. Isa. 42:5-6); then in 5 discourses, Matthew collects together, for all who accept him as their Savior and Lord, all of Jesus’s teaching which must be followed by all who become members of the Messianic kingdom he is inaugurating and which will be consummated at his 2nd Advent (cf. Matt. 5-7; 10; 13; 18; 24-25); and then Matthew records Jesus’s declaration of the Great Commission, which gives the marching orders to the Church to carry out its worldwide mission until he returns (cf. Matt. 28:16-20). Moreover, throughout their letters, the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John affirm that their doctrine, ethical teaching and practice is firmly rooted in that of Christ himself (cf. 2 Pet. 3:1-2; 1 Cor. 10:31-11:1; 1 Jn 1:5-7).

Furthermore, it is on the basis of the unity of their teaching with that of Christ himself that these Apostles affirm that the mission of the Church is to carry on “the ministry of reconciliation” that God began in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:11-21), and not the building of “Christian nations” per se. The Church is meant to be both an outpost and signpost of the Kingdom of God, which was inaugurated in Christ’s 1st Advent, and which will be consummated in his 2nd Advent when he returns in power and glory to reign on earth (cf. Lk. 17:20-33; 21:10-28). This being the case, while the Church carries on its mission in the world, it cannot be identified with any one nation or political system.

“Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), therefore the Church necessarily stands apart from earthly political powers so that it may speak prophetically to all people, the society, and governing authorities. The Church has been given a divine mission of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-21). First, we call everyone to be reconciled to God through the proclamation of the Gospel as we teach people everywhere to copy the way of Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). Second, we seek to reconcile people to one another by addressing issues of justice, righteousness, and peace (Amos 5:24). We accomplish this by loving our neighbors (Mark 12:31), and by engaging our public life with humility, integrity, and a commitment to the common good as defined by our faith in Christ (Romans 12:18). We reject both the call for the Church to withdraw from societal issues out of fear of political contamination, as well as any attempt to distort the Church into a mere vehicle of political or social power.”(5)

If we were to give a “Confessional” form to the message and mission of the Christian Church today, it would be somewhat as follows:

We believe in Jesus Christ the Lord,
Who was promised to the people of Israel,
Who came in the flesh to dwell among us,
Who announced the coming of the Reign of God,
Who gathered disciples and taught them,
Who died on the cross to free us from sin,
Who rose from the dead to give us new life and hope,
Who reigns at the right hand of God in heaven,
Who comes again to judge and bring justice on earth.
We believe in God his Father,
Who raised Jesus from the dead,
Who created and continues to sustain the universe,
Who acts in time and history to deliver his people,
Who rules over the destinies of peoples and nations,
Whose mighty grace can transform the worst of sinners.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
Who is the Divine Agent present and active in the Church,
Who moves people to faith and obedience,
Who is the guarantee of our salvation,
Who reveals to us God’s will in the Scriptures he inspired,
Who impels us to act together on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe God has made us, the Christian Church, his people,
To invite others to follow Christ,
To encourage one another to deepen our commitment,
To proclaim forgiveness of sins and hope in Jesus’ name,
To reconcile people to God through word and deed,
To bear witness to the power of love over hate,
To the ends of the earth,
To all peoples and nations,
To the end of the Age! Amen!

Now, having examined the nature and purpose of the Christian Church, we will consider the nature and purpose of Government as divinely instituted by God. It is evident from such OT Scriptures as Genesis 1-2, 9, Psalms 8, 72, and 82 (which form the basis of the NT teaching on this subject) that government was established by God; that it was God’s purpose that human beings, who are made in his image, by means of government, were to be his stewards and managers of the earth and its resources, and that they were to rule wisely, justly, and fairly, promoting the welfare of all under their jurisdiction. “One of the things we learn from the Scriptures about the nature of government is that it has broad tasks of distribution and retribution for the sake of the entire society over which it governs (see e.g., Exod. 21; Lev. 25; Deut.24:1-22). Today we would call this public responsibility. Society today is a diversity of families, businesses, schools, associations, churches, and so forth. Governments are called to look after the general public health and welfare of the whole society, but that does not give them authority to disrupt or destroy the proper responsibilities that God has given to parents, pastors, teachers, employers, and other stewards. Rules and regulations for sanitation, transport, contracts, and the punishment of crimes, for example, are all public laws that belong to the proper domain of government.”(6)

Recognizing that the NT teaching on government has these OT roots, we will examine the two most important NT texts regarding government and the civic responsibilities of Christians to the various national and state governments under which they live. The two texts are as follows:

1. “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”—Romans 13:1-7, NIV

2. “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of the foolish. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” –1 Peter 2:13-17, NIV

Some general observations and comments: Of the two texts, 1 Peter 2:13-17 is the shortest and it doesn’t directly address the issue of “rebellion against authorities” as does Romans 13:1-7. Yet both represent civil authorities as established by God to maintain the public order and welfare; that they are God’s servants for the “good” of society, punishing evildoers and commending law-abiding citizens; that Christians are to show proper respect and honor where it is due; and that Christians are to so conduct themselves that there is no basis to charge them with any lawless or anti-social behavior that might be construed as a threat to the stability and well-being of the State and its citizens.

Moreover, Paul adds that if they have benefitted by government services, Christians are obligated to pay required taxes and revenues, perhaps echoing Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 22:15-22, which concludes with the statement: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” (Matt. 22:21, NIV) And because government workers give themselves “full time” to the governing process and providing for the public order and well-being of its citizens, it is implied that whatever funds are necessary for maintaining government agencies and the services they provide for everyone, then Christians as beneficiaries of these agencies and their services are obligated, as are other citizens, to pay the taxes and revenues necessary for the functioning of these agencies.

However, it is Paul, rather than Peter, who clearly affirms that the State alone is given the authority to “bear the sword” or to use coercive force to maintain the social order, economic stability, and overall well-being of its citizens when such force is necessary. Why? Because of people’s sinful inclinations and stubbornness (which he has discussed earlier in Rom. 3 and 5), there are times and circumstances when—to maintain social order, stability, and equity—the State must use its power to move the community to do what it voluntarily refuses to pursue. This divinely approved function and duty of government is often described by political scientists as “power politics.”

One commentator explains “power politics” as follows: “The very essence of politics is the use of power—power to determine who in a given society gets what, how, when, and where. The political system is nothing less (although hopefully something more) than the institutionalized means a society employs to resolve questions incapable of being resolved voluntarily without the use of the sword. When Jimmy Carter spoke of a government ‘which is as loving as its people,’ he should have been reminded that government acts not as an agent of love, but as a final resort to force when love, compassion, and voluntarism have failed.”(7) An example of this would be the intervention of the Federal government in 1965 to protect Civil Rights protestors when racist and segregationist State governments refused to do so.

Of the statements Paul makes about government in Romans 13:1-7 which has proven difficult and controversial, it is this one: “[T]here is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist are established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Rom. 13:1-2, NIV). Is this an absolute command for all times and circumstances, a general principle to be followed during normal times and circumstances, or what? And are there times and circumstances under which Christian civil disobedience is not only permissible, but also necessary? These and related questions will be discussed in the next section of this paper.

However, before moving on to these questions, I want to briefly look at the Principled Pluralist view of how the Church, Government, and Non-Governmental Organizations function separately but cooperatively, working together to build the social safety network that not only helps a society stay strong but also vibrant and productive. Gordon J. Spykman argues that Principled Pluralism can bring healing to American society and its various institutions because it avoids the problems of both individualist and collectivist socio-political theory. He states:

“[Principled Pluralism] is, therefore, not simply a synthesis of individualism and collectivism. It is an authentic third way of viewing society. Whereas the other two views define the discrete individual or the collective whole as the ultimate locus for the norms of society, pluralism holds that humans, being by nature social creatures, always stand in a plurality of life-relationships. Man can never be reduced to either a mere atomistic individual with no social responsibilities or a mere cog in a societal machine with no individual significance.

“Accordingly, pluralism argues that the individual, standing apart from societal structures, is not ultimate. It posits instead a persons-in-associations model as the framework within which a person’s individuality finds meaning. Its proponents insist also that no large institution can properly claim to be the all-embracing societal structure, the one in which ultimate meaning is located. Pluralists hold instead that multiple societal structures such as family school, church, business corporation, and state are real and meaningful. Sometimes called mediating structures, sometimes called societal spheres, these communal realities exist alongside the state, and each must be fully accorded its own unique right of existence.

“In this view the state is not the single all-embracing structure. It has neither an ontological status higher than other social institutions, as in collectivism, nor a purely artificial, fictional, derived, and contractual status, as in individualism. It has its own distinct God-given identity and sphere of influence. The state has a specifically limited scope, bounded and balanced by the rights of other societal groupings and spheres. Its specific function is to promote public justice, to balance rights and responsibilities of the other societal spheres, to adjudicate differences between them as well as between individuals within them, and to promote and protect the rights of all. The state is the balance wheel that safeguards, regulates, and coordinates the work of the other wheels, ensuring a proper intermeshing of functions and, thus, facilitating cooperation in partnership.”(8)

It is my conviction that to avoid the extremes of anarchy, authoritarianism, and theocracy, the best path to follow is to embrace the Principled Pluralist view of the relationship between the Church, NGOs, and the State. And so, we return to the issue of Christian obedience and disobedience to the State, and how it pertains to the authoritarian Trump regime.

III. Addressing the Scripture and the Questions of Christian Civil Obedience and Disobedience

Now if read it at face value, Paul’s exhortation in Rom. 13:1-7 on Christian civil obedience and disobedience could be read as an ultimate and timeless command with no exceptions or limitations. Of course, if one is in a situation where the established authorities do not object to the Christian faith and way of life or treat all religions and philosophies as permissible so long as they form no imminent threat to the well-being of the State and its citizens, then obedience and disobedience may be a relatively simple issue to resolve.

But in situations where there is not only open hostility to Christianity, but the authorities also prohibit Christians to either proclaim the Gospel or practice their faith publically, and further oppress and persecute those who do, then civil obedience and disobedience become problematic. And under authoritarian regimes which establish and enforce laws and policies that may clearly go against the foundational teachings and moral standards of Christianity, then the situation becomes even more perilous.

However, before continuing to discuss if, when, where, and how non-violent and militant disobedience to the government is permissible Christians, we need to address some of the historical background and issues lying behind what Paul had in mind as he wrote this section of Romans. Like the Jewish and Greek philosophers of his time, Paul believed that various governing authorities had been established by God; that it was God’s purpose that governments, as God’s servants and stewards, were to rule wisely, justly, and fairly, promoting the welfare of all under their jurisdiction in accordance with their appointed but broad tasks of distribution and retribution for the sake of the societies over which they governed.

Now, though the Greek philosophers put forth different ideas on the “ideal form of government,” Paul is more focused on the reality of the Christian’s life and existence in the Roman Empire and the complex challenges of that reality. He was convinced from the OT, as a Jew, that God’s universal sovereignty and “providential care are included in the control of nations and the maintenance of civil order within them. The OT had taught Paul that it is God who sets up civil rulers and that their authority is delegated from Him (e.g. Jer. 25:27:5f.; Dan. 2:21, 37f., 4:17.”9 And as a Roman citizen, Paul shared the common attitude that regarded the Empire as the guardian of peace, the bulwark of civil order and justice. Yet there were some social and religious customs and practices, such as emperor worship, that while favored and legalized by Rome, neither Paul nor his converts participated in because they in some way violated the standards of God’s Kingdom, the “traditions” which he and the other apostles had passed on to the churches (e.g., 1 Cor.11:2, 16).

So, Paul himself, though a law-abiding citizen of the Empire, did not obey the State when it demanded him to believe or do things contrary to God’s standards. And this refusal to comply with certain demands of civil and religious authorities contrary to the message and mission of the Church, as entrusted to it by Christ himself, is evident by the Apostles’ disobedience when the religious and civil authorities of Jerusalem forbad them to proclaim the Gospel (cf. Acts 4:1-20). And it is also evident from the history of the Early Church up to 325 A.D. (when Emperor Constatine legalized Christianity), that this “non-violent” disobedience to the Roman State was exercised, even though it often had fatal consequences. For example, Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, was arrested in 156 A.D. by the Roman Proconsul and urged to swear to the “genius of Caesar” and to curse Christ or he would be burned at the stake. Polycarp replied that in civil matters that were properly assigned to the government, he would comply. But when it came to coercion in matters of faith and worship, he must remain loyal to Christ. And so, he was put to death, burned at the stake.

After surveying both the evidence from the NT and the history of the Early Church on this issue, N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, in Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness, come to the following conclusion about the Christian’s obedience and disobedience to civil government:

“So, is disobedience to government possible for the Christian? The answer is ‘yes’ for two reasons. First, no earthly institution, whether monarch or magistrate, possesses absolute authority. The authority of the State, is not inviolable position but a performance of service, a service rendered to God and exercised for the people. The government’s authority, then, is conditioned upon its performance to meet God’s standards of righteousness and to win the consensus of the people in how they wish to be governed. Second, while government is divinely instituted for the common good, and should be obeyed in principle, not every governor is good. Government should not be obeyed in every instance, especially if it interferes with religious liberty, acts unlawfully, or renders harm to its own people.” (10)

However, the viewpoint of Wright and Bird is not all that novel among Christians; it has historical precedent in the teaching of the Protestant Reformers. For example, John Calvin was very aware of this issue and had much to say about it. He wrote that Christians’ obedience to governing authorities “is never to lead us away from to obedience to God…if they command anything against him, let it go unesteemed” and “when princes forbid the services and worship of God,…and want them to consent to and participate in all the abominations contrary to the service of God, they are not worthy to be regarded as princes or to have any authority attributed to them.” (11)

Summing up things thus far: Government has been instituted by God, has been tasked with maintaining public safety and order, dispensing justice equitably, promoting the common welfare of all its citizens, and it must not overstep its God-given sphere of sovereignty such that it does either harm to its citizens or to the Church and its mission. Indeed, when the Government, NGOs, and the Church recognize and respect each other’s divinely assigned spheres of jurisdiction and influence, they can cooperate and build various safety nets that benefit the whole of society. But when Government does overstep its God-given areas of jurisdiction and demands that Christians consent and participate in society such as to lead them to violate their allegiance to God and his demands upon them, then Christians are certainly free to disobey the governing authorities.

IV. Legitimate and Illegitimate Christian Civil Disobedience: Situational and Proportionate

Now, when we consider Christians being disobedient to civil government, we have already discussed when such disobedience is permissible: As made clear by N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, whenever the civil government interferes with religious liberty, engages in unlawful practices and policies, and renders harm to its own people, we no longer owe them any allegiance or obedience. So, we must face this question next: How do we, as Christians, resist evil without becoming and doing evil ourselves? That is the issue before us now. First, we need to consider the two types of government and their respective policies that Christians must disobey. Then, second, we need to consider the issue of “proportionate” resistance. And lastly, the legitimacy, if any, of violent resistance to civil government by Christians.

First, we must consider the types of governments and their policies where Christian disobedience and resistance may be necessary. The two types, according to political theorist John Rawls, are “nearly just” governments and “unjust” governments. In the first type of government (whether a monarchy or liberal democracy), the government is, overall maintaining the social order, distributing justice fairly and equitably, and promoting the public welfare, then where certain unjust laws arise that are harmful to the citizenry, at that point Christian disobedience and resistance to those specific laws would be justified. And in the second type of government (whether a monarchy or liberal democracy), in which justice is perverted in the courts in favor of one class over another; citizens are denied basic rights as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble and petition for grievances; where people are arrested, deported or imprisoned without due process, then Christian disobedience and resistance to the government is justified because it has become an unjust government. N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird explain as follows:

“[Civil disobedience] must be scaled to the detriment that a government performs against its citizens and non-citizens. Even if no government is ideally just, we should not automatically revert to uncivil actions if the government is, in Rawls’ language, “nearly just.”

It may be helpful if we distinguish unjust laws from unjust government. A government can be, for the most part, just, fair and equitable but still legitimate; yet pass unjust laws which require our petition, resistance, and disobedience. Not every unjust law requires maximal civil disobedience; and an unjust government is better removed from office by democratic process than brought down by a violent mob or military coup. One needs to have criteria for determining unjust laws, evaluating the performance of a government as a whole, considering the consequences of all options, and responding to injustice with effective yet proportional measures.

In some jurisdictions, strident yet peaceful advocacy can achieve better results than short-tempered riots. Christian teaching affirms that obedience and respect for government is the norm even if the government is imperfect or unjust in some matters civil disobedience is reserved for unjust laws, and uncivil disobedience should be reserved only for violent authorities.”(12)

In terms of proportionate resistance to unjust laws enacted by a government that is otherwise largely just, fair, and equitable, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement he led (which was a Christian movement), engaged in primarily peaceful, non-violent protests, sit-ins, boycotts, marches against Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. And I would venture to say that King’s principles and practices of non-violent disobedience and resistance should be followed by Christians today in dealing with many unjust laws whether local, state, or those being pushed by the Trump regime. Moreover, to preserve our essential Constitutional rights and liberties, we must be willing to join resistance coalitions which--though made up of people and groups that differ with us on some religious, social, or political issues--nevertheless share the same concerns about our First Amendment rights and who hold to the same principles of non-violent civil disobedience practiced and promoted by Dr. King. As Timothy Snyder, former Yale Prof. of History, explains:

“For resistance to succeed, two boundaries must be crossed. First, ideas about change must engage people of various backgrounds who do not agree about everything. Second, people must find themselves in places that are not their homes, and among groups who were not previously their friends. Protest can be organized through social media, but nothing is real that does not end on the streets. If tyrants feel no consequences for their actions in the three-dimensional world, nothing will change.

“The one example of successful resistance to communism was the Solidarity labor movement in Poland in 1980-81: a coalition of workers and professionals, elements of the Roman Catholic Church, and secular groups. Its leaders had learned hard lessons under communism. In 1968, the regime mobilized workers against students who protested. In 1970, when a strike in Gdansk on the Baltic coast was bloodily suppressed, it was the workers’ turn to feel isolated. In 1976, however, intellectuals and professionals formed a group to assist workers who had been abused by the government. These were people from both the Right and the Left, believers and atheists, who created trust among workers—people whom they would not otherwise have met.

“When Polish workers on the Baltic coast went on strike again in 1980, they were joined by lawyers, scholars, and others who helped them make their case. The result was the creation of a free labor union, as well as government guarantees to observe human rights. During the sixteen months that Solidarity was legal, ten million people joined, and countless new friendships were created amid strikes, marches, and demonstrations. The Polish communist regime put down the movement with martial law in 1981. Yet eight years later, in 1989, when they needed negotiating partners, the communists had to turn to Solidarity. The labor union insisted on elections, which it then won. This was the beginning of the end of communism in Poland, eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union.”(13)

In light of the above considerations, I and many others who regard ourselves as “pro-democracy, anti-autocracy” have become involved in the nationwide “Hands Off Our Democracy” and “No Kings” protests, which were organized and carried out by a coalition of diverse groups opposed to the Trump regime and its dogged attempts to destroy our Constitutional government and impose a fascist oligarchy that takes away our liberties, rights, and access to a decent life for us and our children. And I will continue to be involved in and to encourage this persistent, non-violent resistance to the Trump regime and any other administrations passing unjust laws.

Unfortunately, as regards the Trump regime itself, we are not merely faced with a duly elected government that upholds the US Constitution as the social contract of our nation, that is upheld by the Rule of Law as legislated by Congress, adjudicated by the Federal Judiciary, and as enforced by the Executive Branch, and that is seeking to “reform” a few bad laws and policies of previous administrations. No, not at all. What we are faced with, instead, is a government led by a malignant narcissistic demagogue and convicted felon, who with corrupt and/or compromised allies in both Congress and the Supreme Court, is hell-bent on shredding the Constitution with it checks and balances for each Branch of the Federal Government, and replace the Rule of Law that benefits all US citizens with the Rule of Oligarchy, where the rich and powerful become more rich and powerful at the expense of the poor, the working class, and the middle class.

You don’t have to be a Marxist or a Socialist to recognize that the Big Boss and his DC mob are engaged in class and racial warfare against the rest of us. All the evidence is there in Project 2025 for anyone to see who hasn’t become a brainwashed member of Trump’s MAGA cult. And then, of course, the various media exposés (e.g. Legal AF, Justice Matters, MSNBC, Medias Touch Network, BBC, CBC) of the Trump regime’s gutting Federal agencies and services so vital to the survival of the poor, elderly, and veterans; the abandonment of our democratic allies and siding with authoritarian governments, such as Federalist Russia led by Vladamir Putin; destroying our economy and breaking trade alliances through illegal and wild tariffs that profit no one; the illegal and immoral attacks on law firms, judges, political opponents; the illegal and immoral detention and deportation of immigrants without due process—these are just some of the many evidences that confirm we are dealing with a wicked, corrupt, and unjust government that, even though it craftly used legal processes to gain official power and influence, does not meet God’s standards of good government as we have herein described, and so it needs to be removed by all legal and moral means possible, as we shall discuss in the following sections of this paper.

V. The Difficult Question of Christian Uncivil Disobedience to the Trump Regime

Now comes the most difficult question Christians must wrestle with as we face the challenges of the wicked, immoral and unjust Trump regime: Is Christian uncivil or militant disobedience permissible as a last resort? And if so, under what circumstances and in what forms is it permissible? These are not idle questions. As Wright and Bird point out:

“Even to consider the prospect of violence as permissible or divinely sanctioned enters into morally fraught space. There is a reasonable argument for a just war against a foreign invader but a justification for anti-government revolutionary violence against one’s own civic leaders and against one’s fellow citizens is more precarious. To take up arms or to use the might of a mob against one’s own people is an ethical minefield. We are told by Jesus not to take ‘an eye for an eye’ and when someone hits you on the right cheek, turn the other one towards him.’ Paul also taught, ‘Never repay anyone evil for evil,’ because to resist evil with evil is to create a never-ending spiral that destroys everything and everyone in its path. One could also argue—that is purely pragmatically—that non-violent movements tend to be, more often than not, more successful than violent ones.”(14)

For a long time, when it came to Christians dealing with violent, tyrannical governments, the general belief and practice was to pray along the lines enjoined in 1 Tim. 2:1-6; to live godly, morally upright, and productive lives that would win pagan neighbors’ admiration and respect, while at the same giving gracious and reasonable justification of their faith (cf. 1 Pet. 3:13-17); and where they could do so without violations to the Christian’s commitment to Christ as Lord and to follow the way of life he taught and exemplified himself, to give proper respect to government officials and to pay taxes and revenues for public services they themselves used and profited from, cf. Rom. 13:1-7. However, if the State demanded that Christians in any way they deny Christ as their Lord or follow the way of life he demanded of us, they were to refuse to do so even if it meant being put to death as martyrs. So non-violent disobedience to the State, with consequences often being torture, death, or exile was the dominant Christian response to tyrannical, authoritarian governments. But there has always been a secondary position that, in response to extreme circumstances and government policies, has come to the surface at different times in the history of the Christian church.

While many early Catholic and Protestant theologians believed Scripture forbad violent resistance to tyrannical rulers and magistrates, others, due to the severity of their own social and political circumstances came to a different conclusion. They came to believe and promote the idea that Christians were actively to resistant tyranny and when called for, to so, violently resist tyrannical governments that had become illegitimate because they were no longer governing their people in accordance with God’s standards for governance.

According to the Catholic theologian Thomas Acquinas (1225-1274), governmental authority can be illegitimate for two reasons: First, if it was attained by violent usurpation; and second, if it was exercised in violent and unlawful ways. He further advocated that tyrants be removed by a public authority such as a senate or council of nobles.

John Wycliffe (1330-1384), considered the precursor to the Protestant Reformation and the first scholar to translate the Bible into English, argued in some of his writings that the idea that tyrants were appointed by God was blasphemous because it led to the conclusion that God, by appointing and approving them, was responsible for the crimes these tyrants might commit in his name. He argued strenuously therefore, based on Hosea 8:4, that tyrants were made and approved by men, not by God.

Shortly after the Reformation, in 1579, the French Huguenot writer Stephanus Junias Brutus wrote the treatise Vindicae contra Tyrannos, in which he argued that monarchs who violated the natural and inalienable rights of their citizens forfeited their right to rule, and that the people had the right to resist and remove such ruler by force if it was necessary. And later in the 17th Century, the Puritan scholar Samuel Rutherford wrote the tract Lex Rex (“Law is King”) contested the idea that Christians must offer unqualified and absolute fealty to any oppressive government. After carefully examining and weighing Paul’s teaching in Rom. 13:1-7, Rutherford demonstrates that resistance, even violent resistance to tyrannical rule could be warranted. And John Milton wrote in his Defense of the People of England (1651) to reject the notion of the divine right of kings, to distinguish between kingly power and tyranny, to declare that while laws might come from a king, liberty comes from God, and to explain that Paul’s teaching in Rom. 13:1-7 applies only to lawful rulers.

Now, someone may be asking why I am even considering this question in the first place. Let me briefly answer that question by saying that if our God, whom we say is just, good, and loving delights in exercising steadfast love, justice and righteousness on earth, as the OT tells us; and if we are called to be representatives and spokespersons for God’s kingdom, as the NT tells us; then how can we not speak out against and resist tyranny when we see it in action? What is our response to this demand God makes of his people, especially to those of us who have positions of social and religious power and influence? Scripture is quite clear on this:

“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
“If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
"Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; for the rights of those who are destitute.
“Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Proverbs 24:11-12; 31:8-9, NIV

There are times when we must do everything we can to both expose and oppose the wickedness, injustice and exploitation of the poor, needy, and vulnerable by the rich and powerful. Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer so vividly put it, “We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheel of injustice; we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.” And so, I want to, by means of this paper, drive a spoke into the wheel of injustice moving the Trump regime and stop it in its tracks.

Now in considering uncivil disobedience, militant resistance, revolution, whatever you may call it, let me be clear on what I’m not advocating. First, I am not advocating any kind of holy war that seeks to establish Christ’s kingdom on earth. As noted earlier in this paper, any such notion is in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own teaching that his kingdom is not established and expanded by military force and political coercion (cf. John 18:31-37). It is through prayer, evangelism, discipleship, the establishment of Christian communities, and working for economic and social justice that Christ’s kingdom is advanced (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-8). Second, I am not advocating spontaneous riots by angry mobs bent on mindless destruction. Rather, I argue that such militant resistance should be conducted by a coalition of legal authorities, state governments, and other institutions invoking their states’ rights under the US Constitution. And third, any such armed conflict would need to be conducted, as Wright and Bird suggest, in accordance with “just war” criteria and principles. They write as follows:

“We want to claim that any uncivil resistance needs to be proportionate and have a criterion for distinguishing between lawful/legitimate and unlawful/illegitimate authority. Furthermore, the risk remains that to resist violence with violence creates a never-ending spiral which becomes more oppressive than whatever regime one is staring down. Civil disobedience need not be violent, only subversive, that is, aiming to deter, disrupt, or destroy the capacity of a civil authority to maintain or extend its exercise of unjust power.

“But then again, we have never felt the lash of a totalitarian government on our back, had our family members taken away in the night by secret police, found ourselves detained for criticizing governmental policies, had our political opinions censored, seen our churches burned down in front of us, been sent into exile, or witnessed opposition leaders being executed because of their popularity with the masses. Such things could conceivably convince us that there is a case for a just war against an unjust totalitarian regime in one’s own nation.”(15)

However, as Rachel Maddow stated during her 08/4/25 podcast, no matter how you look at it, we are no longer waiting for authoritarianism to come to America; with Donald Trump and his utilization of fascist tactics to consolidate governmental power and cultural influence for himself, it has come. And what is the evidence confirming this? Despite the lies, deceptions, and coverups it has made, the fact that the Trump regime is building and staffing concentration camps all over the country; that it is weaponizing the DOJ to investigate and prosecute political opponents and critics of regime’s policies and practices; that it is downgrading or closing federal agencies that provide for the welfare of the poor, the elderly, laborers, veterans—and then taking the money it has robbed from these agencies to pay for a tax cut that only benefits the rich and powerful; that it has engaged in a trade war that profits no one and adds a greater financial burden on Americans; that it has alienated and rejected long standing alliances with the EU and Ukraine, while giving a freehand for Putin’s aggressive Russian expansionism; that it has been working to ”legally” pardon and free a convicted sex-trafficker and pedophile so as to protect its leader from being exposed, and possibly prosecuted, for his involvement in her and her late partner’s child sex-trafficking ring—it is these policies and actions that confirm the truth of Maddow’s report that the Trump regime is a lawless, immoral, corrupt, authoritarian government on the rise, which we must fight with all the tools available to us.

Here I would like to remind us of what John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, wrote concerning the nature and purpose of good government, which he as a committee representative had written for the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, and which forms the foundation of the US Constitution as well:

“Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people and not for the profit of any one man, family, or class of men. Therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” 16
Consequently, Adams’ statement certainly justifies our right to oppose and remove a tyrannical government that promotes only the well-being of one man, his family, and the social elites who support such a regime.

I cannot speak for others, but based on all the unlawful policies passed, and all the unlawful actions taken by the Trump regime over the last six months, I am convinced a strong case could be made for militant resistance by State governors and their militia to the Trump administration as “an unjust totalitarian regime,” per the 2nd Amendment. I certainly understand John Adam’s viewpoint on armed resistance to tyranny, when he said, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.” And as one of Founding Fathers, it is clear from Adam’s political writings that he firmly believed that the States, even under the US Constitution, had the right to resist and defend themselves against an overreaching Federal government.

Yet in weighing the gravity of our situation, we must tread our path with profound caution and humility, seeking God’s direction and guidance. The prospect of resisting an unjust government—one that seems to unravel the very threads of democracy, equity, and decency—poses moral and practical dilemmas that can never be taken lightly. History offers us sobering lessons: when the machinery of state serves the interests of a select few and abandons the many, the resulting turmoil and suffering can be catastrophic. Resistance, then, is not merely a tactic but an ethical obligation, only to be exercised with the utmost seriousness and discernment.

Every avenue of peaceful redress must be pursued relentlessly, for the path of violence, once begun, rarely ends where one intends. The legacy of division, loss, and trauma is all too familiar in the American story. Our challenge, therefore, is to marshal the courage to speak truth to power, to organize, to defend the weak, and to act as God’s stewards of justice—not out of vengeance, but out of hope for a nation restored. Only if all legal, non-violent means are exhausted, and only in the direst necessity to preserve what is good and just, can more drastic measures be contemplated. It is in this light that we remember not only our rights, but also our responsibilities as citizens, anchored in conscience, guided by history, and sustained by faith in the possibility of renewal.

Now that I have stated why, as a Christian, I have written this basic introduction to a Christian socio-political theology, in which I have outlined key concepts and principles—I also want to make it clear that I wrote this paper because I am a veteran and patriot who swore to support and defend the US Constitution and the Rule of Law against all domestic and foreign enemies. And so, I want to close this paper with a statement by historian Tim Synder on what true American patriotism is, followed with a prayer from the Covenant Hymn Book:

“What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active- duty members of the armed forces in one’s companies or on legal fees, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one’s property…It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one’s own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one’s own companies.

“It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Kim Jong Un; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call on foreign leaders to intervene in American presidential elections. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies. It is not patriotic to share an advisor with Russian oligarchs. It is not patriotic to appoint advisors with financial interests in Russian companies…It is not patriotic to refer to American soldiers as ‘losers’ and ‘suckers.’ It is not patriotic to take health care from families, nor to golf your way through a national epidemic in which half a million Americans die. It is not patriotic to try to sabotage an American election, nor to claim victory after defeat. It is not patriotic to end democracy.

“A nationalist might do all these things, but a nationalist is not a patriot. A nationalist encourages us to be our worst, and then tells us that we are the best. A nationalist, ‘although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge,’ wrote Orwell, tends to be ‘uninterested in what happens in the real world.’ Nationalism is relativist, since the only truth is the resentment we feel when we contemplate others. As the novelist Danilo Kis put it, nationalism ‘has no universal values, aesthetic or ethical.’

“A patriot, by contrast, wants the nation to live up to its ideals, which means asking us to be our best selves. A patriot must be concerned with the real world, which is the only place where his country can be loved and sustained. A patriot has universal values, standards by which he judges his nation, always wishing it well—and wishing it would do better.

“Democracy failed in Europe in the 1920s, ‘30s, and ‘40s, and it is failing not only in much of Europe but in many parts of the world today. It is that history and experience that reveals to us the dark range of our possible futures. A nationalist will say that ‘it can’t happen here,’ which is the first step toward disaster. A patriot says that it could happen here, but we will stop it.”(17)

And over the last couple of years, as an active member of the ECCA, I have included this prayer in my prayer time; a prayer which I hope “pro-democracy” Christians will adopt as well:

“O God, Sovereign of the universe, without you nothing is true, nothing is just.
In your Word you reveal the way of love, by your Spirit you make it possible.
“From greed and selfishness, from a society in which the rich get richer and
the poor get poorer, Compassionate God, deliver us.
“From racial prejudice and religious intolerance, from a society which makes its weakest
and most recent members into scapegoats, Compassionate God, deliver us.
“From indifference to the needs of other countries, from the delusion that God loves
any other nation less than he loves America, Compassionate God, deliver us.
“From self-indulgence and indifference, from a society in which fidelity and responsibility
have little place, Compassionate God, deliver us.
“Author of Life, give us hearts set on the coming of your reign; give us wise, just, and humble leaders; give all who live in this land a will to live in peace, through Jesus Christ,
The One who is above all powers and dominions. Amen”(18)

(1) Perry C. Cotham, “Introduction,” Christian Social Ethics: Perspectives and Problems, p. 10.
(2) Ibid., p.3.
(3) Ibid., p.11.
(4) “Perspectives for Social Action,” Architect of Evangelicalism, 2019.
(5) Article 5, “We Are Committed to the Prophetic Mission of the Church,” Confession of Evangelical Conviction (2024), pp.2-3.
(6) James Skillen, “Government,” The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 477.
(7) Paul B. Henry, “Perspectives on Power Politics,“ Christian Social Ethics, p. 63.
(8) “The Principled Pluralist Position, “ God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, p. 97.
(9) Leslie C. Allen, “Church and State, Rom. 13:1-7,” International Bible Commentary, p. 1340.
(10) N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, “The Church between Submission and Subversion,” Jesus and the Powers, p.112.
(11) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.32 and Lectures on Daniel 6.22.
(12) Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness, p.119
(13) Timothy Synder. “Practice Corporeal Politics,” On Tyranny, pp. 83-86
(14) Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness, p. 117.
(15) Jesus and the Powers, pp. 119-120.
(16) “The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: A Model,” The Political Writings of John Adams, p. 97.
(17) Timothy Synder. “Be A Patriot,” On Tyranny, pp.111-114.
(18) Evangelical Covenant Hymnal, 1996 Editon, p. 948.

Bibliography

Barker, Kenneth, General Editor. NIV Study Bible, Fully Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2480 pages, 2020.

Bockmuehl, Klaus. Living By the Gospel: Christian Roots of Confidence and Purpose, Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers and Howard, 120 pages.

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2020, 969 pages.

Cotham, Perry C, Editor. Christian Social Ethics: Perspectives and Problems, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House Publishers, 1979, 265 pages.

Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Leadership in Turbulent Times, New York City, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2018, 471 pages.

Harrison, R.K. Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, 472 pages.

Kahnke, Patrick. A Christian Case Against Donald Trump, Minneapolis, MA: Amazon.com, 2024, 156 pages.

Lugo, Luis E. Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for the 21st Century, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000, 385 pages.

McLoughin, William G. Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism: Pamphlets, 1754-1789, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968, 525 pages.

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, 2nd Edition, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998, 352 pages.
Mondschein, Ken. The U.S. Constitution and Other Writings, San Diego, CA: Canterbury Classics, 2017, 564 pages.

Mondschein, Ken. The U.S. Constitution and Other Writings, San Diego, CA: Canterbury Classics, 2017, 564 pages.

Mouw, Richard J, Editor. Our Confession of Evangelical Conviction, Pasadena, CA: Fuller Seminary, 2024, 3 pages.

Murphy, Paul J. “The Constitution of the United States,” Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 7, New York City, NY: Americana Corporation, 1974, pp. 659-671.

Peck Jr., George A, Editor. The Political Writings of John Adams, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1954, 223 pages.

Snyder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, New York City, NY: Crown Press, 2017, 126 pages.

Rossiter, Clinton. The Federalist Papers, New York City, NY: Mentor Books, 1961, 560 pages.

Smith, Gary Scott, Editor. God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Press, 1989, 300 pages.

Stanley, Jason. How Fascism Works: The Politics of US and THEM, New York City, NY: Random House, 2018, 218 pages.

Stevens, George Barker. The Theology of the New Testament, New York City, NY: Charles Schriber’s Sons, 1910, 619 pages.

Verduin, Leonard. The Anatomy of a Hybrid: A Study in Church-State Relationships, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976, 274 pages.

Wright, N.T. and Bird, Michael F. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2024, 185 pages.

Zens, Jon, Editor. “Gospel and Law in the Teaching of Jesus Christ,” Searching Together, Special Issue, 1992, 48 pages.