Ten years ago, when theonomists argued for fidelity to God’s Word in the public square, contra both the Republicans and Democrats, the last thing we were called was pietists.
Four years ago, when they critiqued Trump’s Operation Warp Speed or Fauci and his antics, we never heard the phrase “purity spiraling.”
But time changes all things. Now, critiques of any of Donald Trump’s proposed plans for the coming Golden Age are liable to elicit reproach by those who just want to keep “winning.” Those of us who are not over the moon about the recent election results, or want to push for fidelity to God’s Law-Word in the public realm, are likely to be accused of pietism or “purity spiraling.”
For example, after discussing the homosexual Scott Pressler’s efforts to register Republican voters in Pennsylvania, Eric Conn said on a recent episode of The King’s Hall, “And yet we see a lot…of Christians who are like, ‘I’m sitting this one out, nobody’s perfect enough for me.’ There’s some purity spiraling going on.” The idea is that those who did not vote for Trump have unrealistic standards and are unwilling to get their hands (or consciences) dirty by voting for Trump.
Conn also noted, “The pietism is not going to hold the barbarians off.” It is a catchy slogan, but it lacks substance. In the end, based on the entire podcast, the conclusion one must draw is that pietists don’t vote for Trump, and, furthermore, voting for Trump is the means to hold the barbarians off. Adding to that, Brian Sauvé said, “It is not even a question on whether or not you should have voted” for Trump. He admitted it is lawful to refrain from voting, but it “was unwise and an unforced strategic plunder” to not vote for Trump. In other words, get out and vote Republican — that is how you fight off the barbarians. And that is one thing that has not changed from the Republican camp: whatever else, as long as you end up voting Republican, you will have done your part to help the Republic.
I fundamentally reject the claim that voting for men to make or enforce man-made laws and/or run departments funded via theft (forced taxation) will hold “the barbarians off” (whatever that actually means). The idea of the sacredness of the ballot box or the civic duty to vote is pushed heavily by both political parties (and many Christian voices, even in the Reformed circles). And despite many of the restless and red-pilled tweets against “democracy,” they end up arguing for the same means of bringing about change as the rest do: voting.
I’ve come to be convinced: As long as Americans believe that voting is what brings about biblical change, we will never extract ourselves from belief in this man-made, unbiblical system. As long as my neighbors keep faith in this man-made system, they will keep following and enforcing whatever laws are birthed from it. If the key to fight the barbarians is to vote, then we presuppose that we should follow the laws and policies that are put in place by those we vote into “power.” But it is this fundamental belief — namely, that the people should follow and enforce the man-made laws of those elected in a “constitutional republic” or “representative democracy” — that must be rejected.
Christians should argue for fidelity to Christ’s commands and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Regarding the civil realm, God has told us what he requires of us for justice (cf. Micah 6:8). There are very practical ways to bring this about (which I will highlight below), but nonetheless many Christian leaders reject this route as unrealistic and hypothetical. For example, Joel Webbon has said that theonomists can be “insufferable” and it seems like they do not want to “win.”
A couple things are baked into this idea of “winning” as presented by Conn, Sauvé, Webbon, and many others. One: Beating the Democrats is the definition of “winning.” Two: Arguing for fidelity to God’s Law-Word, and refusing to support those who do not want to implement God’s Law-Word, is unrealistic, perfectionistic, unpragmatic, and, most importantly, not “winning,” because it does not lead to immediate wins for the Republicans via elections.
If those premises are assumed axiomatically, then the argument is over. But I believe we need to think biblically, and with a bit of foresight, about some things before we jump to the conclusion that God is calling us to faithfulness via “winning” against the Democrats. What if he is calling us to something greater? God calls us to do justice (cf. Deut. 16:20) and teach others to obey the “least” of Christ’s commands (Matt. 5:19). If we are not doing those two things, any amount of “winning” is not to be equated with faithfulness to Christ.
We Want To Win and We Want To Win Now
One wonders if the forerunners to the Reformers, men who argued that the Pope was not the highest authority and called on people to dissent from his man-made laws, were “winning” when they lost their lives for their faithfulness to Christ’s commands. They had a clear message: Jesus Christ is Head of the Church, and any man claiming that title for himself and making laws from that position, should be disregarded and disobeyed. Not only did they preach this message, but they also lived it out by (1) refusing to enforce the laws of the Pope or monarch against their neighbors and (2) not following those laws (e.g., laws against preaching the Bible, reading it in their own language, translating the Bible, etc.). They sent an unmistakable message: We have no faith in this system and believe change will come, not by working to get a better “head” of the church, but rather by rejecting the man-made system.
Every argument leveled against theonomists who did not support Trump could have also been leveled against the dissenters of the papacy (men who changed the world more than Trump will): “You guys have an unrealistic standard. This is the system we currently have. The Pope is in charge. It could be much worse. At least there is not a Muslim Imam in charge. We are ‘winning’ because the Pope is promoting at least a form of Christianity and keeping us from the evils of paganism and Islam. I agree that in an ideal, hypothetical world based on one interpretation of the Bible, people wouldn’t be punished for reading the Bible in their own language, but you are not going to win any arguments by counter-signaling the Pope and his men. If you want change, you go take power and make the change. Until then, just be happy things are better than they were before the Pope came along.”
Thankfully, the men who defied the Pope (or the monarch of England in the case of many in England), were not so short-sighted. They understood that lasting, desirable change would not come by shutting up and being happy things were not “as bad as they could be.” They understood that biblical change would come about by reaching the people with the message that Jesus Christ is Head of the Church and the man-made system of placing a human as the head of the church must be rejected and nullified. Once enough people reject faith in the man-made system, the system will not endure.
Such is the case today. However, the claim that must be pressed today is not “Christ is Head of the Church,” but rather that “Christ is Head of the Nation.” We must not say, “This change might happen someday, but for now we will be happy with the changes to the current system.” Such a mentality places the responsibility for establishing justice on a future generation. Beginning today, the man-made system of statism (voting for man-made law, forced taxation, codified injustice) is what must be disregarded, disobeyed, and nullified. This is the crux of the matter.
I believe there are three general categories of opposition by Reformed Christians to the position (i.e. non-legislative theonomy) I am promoting:
1) We should not even want to get to that point. A mild form of statism, man-made law, and forced taxation are not unjust. The Bible does not teach against these things. We just need to get the right people in “power.”
2) Maybe the non-legislative theonomy position is the ideal for justice, but we will never get to that point, so just do the best with what we have. Focus on “winning” against the Left.
3) We will get there one day, but we have to use the system we have in the meantime.
I could be wrong, but based on the hours of content I have heard, I tend to think men like Conn, Sauvé, and Webbon, would fall into the first category. It seems to me that they do not believe that the Constitutional order in America is fundamentally unbiblical. It seems to me they would not say it is unjust for the state to punish someone for failing to follow a regulation (getting a permit to sell food, not registering a vehicle, possessing a “banned” substance, etc.). It seems to me they would want Trump (and others) to use the “power” of man-made law to make “better” regulations. If this is their position, then it makes little sense for them to critique theonomists as pietists or purity spiraling. Instead, they should say something along the lines of: “We want something fundamentally different than theonomists. We want a magistrate who can make and enforce man-made law. We want the American system, but used against the Leftists and for the righteous, so that we can be ‘safer and healthier’ in a better America.” In this case, if they claim to be committed to applying the Bible to all areas of life, I would like to hear a biblical definition of justice from these men, and robust arguments in favor of man-made law and punishing people for non-evil acts, etc.
Going back to the analogy of the Reformation, those who fall into the first category would be roughly analogous to those arguing in favor of the Papacy. Those men did not claim to disregard the Bible, but rather argued that the Bible is consistent with the Pope and his man-made laws. If Reformed men today want to argue that the magistrate has essentially the same power as the Pope (i.e., to make and enforce man-made laws), then let’s have that debate!
(I am not convinced, however, that any of these men would be willing to have that debate. However, if this is their position, they very much ought to. I am not disparaging them, but simply calling for consistency in their position. I think that would be very helpful for furthering critical thought, rather than saying those who did not vote for Trump are “pietists” and don’t want to “win.”)
The second category is similar, but not identical, to the first. Contrary to the first position, it affirms that the Bible defines justice as something fundamentally different from what our system of man-made law gives us. Nevertheless, those in this category reject that any society can ever implement biblical justice. Therefore, we should adopt another standard of justice and do the best we can. This position is fundamentally flawed. It calls on men to disregard God’s clear standard of righteousness due to what we think might (or might not) happen in the future. According to Deutermoeny 29:29 our job is to be faithful to God’s law and leave the results to him: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” If God’s people are faithful, he can certainly work to bring about the change we seek in the world. People giddy about Trump’s proposed cabinet have admitted they never saw this coming. Well, God can do abundantly more than we could ask or imagine. Let’s not settle for man-made law.
Finally, the third category. I believe there are some in Reformed circles that see the consistency of non-legislative theonomy and God’s standard for justice, and even believe that one day, justice will roll down like waters (cf. Amos 5:24). However, these men think that the path towards that day requires Christians to support, endorse, and promote the current man-made system. Several things need to be addressed regarding this third category.
I recognize that God works through various means and even uses ungodly men to further his purposes. There is no debate on that point. I can be thankful that a pagan bully does not persecute God’s people as much as the previous bully, without claiming that faithfulness to Christ requires me to promote said bully. So, claims that God can use Trump (or anyone) to bring about good are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the path to Christian faithfulness is voting for men who will validate the man-made system. What God does with his sovereign prerogative is his business; our business is to obey his Law-Word (cf. Deut. 29:29).
Concerning the fact that change might happen slowly: It is true that it might take four decades, or four centuries, for the American people (or the people of any nation) to reject man-made law in favor of God’s Law-Word. However, this does not negate or alter our current responsibility to obey (and teach others to obey) all of Christ’s commands (Matt. 5:19). We are to pursue justice and justice only (Deut. 16:20), and leave the results to God. If more men would have joined the Lollards or other early Reformers, perhaps change would have come sooner.
But all of that is beyond our purview — all we can do is obey God today. This point cannot be overemphasized. If we continue to keep a short-sighted vision of our lifetime (a sort of “peace in my time” approach, cf. 2 Kings 20:19) we will likely underestimate the value of uncompromising faithfulness to Christ and the blessings that we can leave for future generations. A righteous man that walks in his integrity blesses his children after him (cf. Prov. 20:7).
If the primary message to be proclaimed is that the man-made system (whether popery or statism) should be rejected, it is impossible to then urge people to be part of or support that very system. It is logically schizophrenic. It is like being willing to die for reading the Bible in English and then telling people that we need to follow the laws of the king who outlaws said Bible reading. This is why I believe most of the men mentioned in this article reject non-legislative theonomy and embrace the first position: they do not want to call on people to reject the man-made system. It contradicts their messaging.
I am not saying they made this choice to gain followers. However, I believe it is true that embracing what God calls us to do in establishing justice is not going to immediately win us subscribers, fans, or clout. It will take principled, patient faithfulness (and far more work than “getting out the vote”). But we must be preaching a consistent message in that patient plodding.
It is much easier to sprinkle the current MAGA momentum with Christian “principles” and get people on board with “winning.” I learned this firsthand while serving as the managing editor for a print newspaper in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It would have been very easy to be a popular publication in a heavily Republican county by telling the people what they wanted to hear. If The Lancaster Patriot newspaper had refused to print critiques of Republicans, and instead focused on slam dunking on the liberals and “winning” against the Leftists, I believe we would still be printing newspapers. But to what end? Some would say, “Well, so you can eventually change your message.” This is not the Christian approach. As Paul said, we renounce underhanded ways and refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2). We declare the truth from the beginning and seek to build on the correct foundation – the lordship of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11). If we are building on the wrong foundation, we cannot simply adjust our approach when the time is “right.”
In summary, the third category is deficient. It replaces faithfulness to God’s commands and a submission to the biblical truth that God will work out what we can’t, with a desire to grab hold of “power” within a man-made system to bring about “good.” It is like trying to get a “better” Pope instead of calling on Christians to reject the popish system of unbelief and faithlessness (cf. 2 Cor. 6:17).
It is worth noting that implicit in many people’s desire to participate in the man-made system is a feeling that they bear responsibility for the evil committed by officials working for the man-made system. “If my vote for Trump means that less people will be persecuted, then I will vote for Trump,” the thinking goes. I have argued extensively in Vote Christian that God never calls us to establish justice by practicing such political prognostication, but I will briefly address this point here.
God calls us to faithfulness to his commands. He does not hold us responsible for what evil men do with the unbiblical systems they create. The dissenters during the reign of Bloody Mary did not bear responsibility for the actions of their feckless neighbors who burned Christians at the stake. The men who enforced Mary’s woman-made laws bore responsibility for such evil. Mark this: There will be injustice committed against Christians “legally” during Trump’s “Golden Age.” Who will bear responsibility for this? Those who voted for Trump? Those who didn’t? I submit the responsibility falls on (1) those who endorse the man-made laws and (2) those who enforce those man-made laws against their neighbors.
I also need to emphasize: No one knows that a vote for Trump will lead to less evil over the next ten years, or twenty years, etc. Such prognostication is foolish for mortal men to entertain. Our job is to obey all of Christ’s commands and call on others to obey all of Christ’s commands (cf. Matt. 5:19). Our job is not to do our best to figure out what will promote less evil within a patently unbiblical man-made system and then “vote harder.”
A Path Forward
Thus far, despite claims that non-legislative theonomists have little practical advice, the principal advice I hear from others reduces to the following: keep voting for men to perpetuate this man-made system. (I’m confused how that is a distinctly Christian approach. If Christians and non-Christians both claim that the primary way to establish justice is by voting, should we not at least pause and reconsider?)
Any talk of practical steps forward presupposes a destination. I reemphasize that men who hold to Category One above (i.e., that we should not abolish the man-made system of voting for man-made legislators) do not want the same thing as Christians arguing for non-legislative theonomy. We are not working towards the same thing. This is not to condemn those men to eternal perdition. But it is to be realistic and honest. We are not on the same page. Luther and Eck might both be in heaven, but they were not working toward the same goal on earth. They could not form a coalition to improve the church. Eck’s commitment to papal authority was fundamentally at odds with Luther’s position. Because Eck was unwilling to abandon his position, he remained at odds with Luther.
If the destination is not agreed upon, all practical steps will be rejected out-of-hand. Thus, I commend several resources here to further make the case for non-legislative theonomy. If, however, we agree upon the destination, we can proceed to practical steps. I believe we could list many more, but I will list seven here.
1. Call on men to have faith in the Word of God as the authoritative standard for every area of life.
Throughout the history of the church, radical change has come by the principled proclamation of the Word of God as the supreme and authoritative standard to which all men must submit. This message radically altered the Greco-Roman world in the early centuries of the church. This message pushed back paganism as Christianity spread in the so-called “dark ages.” And this message was central to the people’s rejection of the papacy in the Reformation era. Perhaps the most important thing we can do is declare what the Bible says about the man-made systems we have set up (whether that is paganism in ancient Ireland, popery in 16th century Europe, or statism in modern America). If Christians today dismiss this as “pietism” then we are indeed in need of massive spiritual revival as the church has once again become seduced by humanism and lack of belief in the power of God’s Word. Let us be faithful to it and proclaim it. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world, and that faith rests upon the Christ revealed in Scripture.
2. Teach people what the Head of the nation (i.e., Christ) says about justice.
One thing glaringly absent from the Christian political discourse in America is a definition of justice and an application of God’s Law-Word in the civil realm. As we build for the future, we need to spend serious amounts of time training the next generation on this point. If we think this task is irrelevant or merely hypothetical then we will never progress. We must take Tyndale’s famous quote and modify it to fit our context: “We defy the statists and all their laws; and if God spare our life, ere many years, we will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of justice than thou dost!”
Evangelism and discipleship must not be minimized as “pietistic” efforts in the quest for civil justice. In the end, justice requires a people who know the Law-Word of God and desire to see its application. If churches in a local township or county unite together to disciple their region, it is not unreasonable that the people of that locale will come to love Christ and refuse to enforce man-made law against one another. In such a case, the tyranny could only come from the state or federal level. This local commitment to justice doesn’t solve everything, but it sets us on a path in the right direction, and prepares us to address the higher level of tyranny.
3. Live consistently with the message we proclaim.
Saint Patrick didn’t preach against druidism and then try to get new Christian converts to become druid priests. The separatists in England didn’t defy King James’ unjust edicts and then argue for other man-made laws requiring people to go to their church. Let us practice what we preach. May the charge of the Apostle Paul never be leveled against us: You then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?
4. Develop local coalitions that will begin to defy man-made laws.
Christians need to work strategically to build coalitions of people who will unite to defy man-made laws. None of this requires legislators “changing the law.” Rather, this is a principled and biblical nullification of man-made laws. This is among the most powerful tools to bring about practical, strategic, and long-lasting change. This concept is foreign to many Americans, so I will briefly elaborate.
Let’s take the example of food laws. In Lancaster County, Amos Miller, a local Amish farmer drew national attention when a Trump-appointed, Republican attorney general prosecuted him for selling meat outside of USDA regulations. Later, the state of Pennsylvania also went after Miller for selling milk without a license. Republican legislators in the state refused to speak up for Miller.
Despite claims that the Amish rallied behind Miller and came out to vote for Trump (the very man who appointed the chief prosecutor of Miller in the federal case), most of the Amish think Miller should simply follow the regulations and get the license. Yes, people like Scott Pressler may have gotten a handful of Amish to vote, playing on the false narrative that it was only the Democrats who went after Miller.
An impact far greater than going out to vote will be made towards justice and righteousness if the majority of the Amish decide to stand with Miller in defying the man-made laws and also dissenting from following licensure and permitting laws coming from Harrisburg (endorsed by men like Rep. Zimmerman). If all the Amish reject these laws, and thousands of non-Amish support them, and are willing to practice civil disobedience, the narrative would likely change. As a byproduct, spineless politicians might even stand with the self-governing people. This sort of cultural shift and practical dissent would do far more to advance the impact of steps 1-3, than any number of Amish (or non-Amish) voter registrations ever will.
In the Reformation era, the growing dissent to popery and man-made law proved an uncontrollable fire at the grassroots that Rome could not extinguish. The same could happen today. Imagine one county successfully defying statism and man-made law. Their example would spread to neighboring counties and states; slowly, but surely, the narrative would be changed, and faith in the new papacy would be undermined.
There are thousands of man-made laws that need to be rejected. The question of when and how to do that is a question of strategy. In bringing up the term strategy, some will remonstrate and say, “Ah, see! You are not defying all the man-made laws at once, so you are not consistent with your own position!” I will explain why this is not a valid critique.
Fleeing persecution is acceptable in the Christian worldview. It is also acceptable to submit to unjust edicts (a turning of the other cheek, as it were, to “flee” further persecution; cf. Matt. 5:39-40). This is fundamentally different from promoting persecution or enforcing man-made laws against our neighbors. Let me unpack this briefly.
I equate a man who punishes someone for either (1) non-evil acts or (2) acts that the Bible does not authorize the magistrate to punish as a veritable bully in the civil realm. This bully could be someone enforcing man-made law against his neighbor for any number of things, including but not limited to failing to get a permit to sell milk, not having a driver’s license while driving on the road, or not registering their children with the state in order to homeschool. The men (and women) who punish people for not following these man-made laws are never justified in committing these injustices. Therefore, there is never an acceptable occasion for someone to act in such a manner or promote such a system.
However, letting the bully steal your lunch money or give you a wedgie, because you lack the resources to stop him today, is justified. It is not inconsistent with steps 1-3. Those living under bullies in the past would often use prudence in determining when and where to preach the Bible. The Lollards were driven underground. The Apostle Paul fled Damascus (Acts 9:23-25). But, in each case, they continued, carefully and steadfastly, with their primary goal, knowing that it was impossible to eliminate all risk of personal harm or persecution. Fidelity to Christ will likely require more effort and sacrifice than registering to vote and mailing in a ballot.
Local churches will need to come together to form coalitions to teach against man-made laws and coordinate dissent to these laws. This will take cooperation (which I will address below), but it is essential in order to begin to chip away at the false religion of statism (i.e., the new popery).
5. Create a parallel justice system.
Create a private Christian court in your region where disputes can be settled outside of institutions funded via forced taxation. This would require humble beginnings, but it would allow Christians to begin to “flex the muscles” of biblical self-governance. It would require prudence (see above), but it could also provide ample opportunities for teaching others how to be self-governed, under God’s Law, and implement justice without forced taxation and man-made law.
Many Christians today are hesitant to call on men to be self-governed. This is similar to the Reformation era. Many argued that disregarding the man-made system of papal authority and allowing men to interpret the Bible for themselves would lead to chaos. Men cannot govern themselves, therefore we need the papacy. Or so the logic went. Did the demise of the papacy result in challenges? Yes. Will the fall of statism be a walk in the park? No. Therefore, let us begin to develop the resolve and experience for self-government (not anarchy).
6. Develop and promote local alternatives to every government program funded via forced taxation.
The most obvious target is the government school system. Attempting to rehabilitate or restore an institution funded via theft (forced taxation) is not biblical, pragmatic, or strategic. Instead, we must work to convince people (Christians and non-Christians) to abandon these institutions. The end goal is social programs and institutions funded via private means or “voluntary” taxation. Once again, as a people we need to learn what it means to be self-governed and show others that it is possible to have a functioning community without government programs funded via forced taxation.
[BONUS] 7. Elect men who will publicly defy the system.
I am not committed to this step as essential, but I would be willing to entertain the idea. There is nothing wrong with “voting” if it is limited to selecting “able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe” (Ex. 18:21). A key question, however, is what are we selecting them to do? If we select someone who will not enforce man-made law, but rather will “throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour” (Jer. 7:4), then I see no inconsistency with Scripture. If a man is willing to go to his state capitol and refuse to take a salary, refuse to vote for any man-made bill, and instead calls on the people (and the judges) to reject man-made law and adjudicate based on God’s Law-Word, he would have my attention. Even if he didn’t win the election, running on such a platform could be helpful in advancing steps 1 and 2 above.
But consider a position such as the sheriff. If a county is able, after the faithful application of steps 1-6, to elect a sheriff who had the support of the people and was willing to resist state or federal agents who enter his county to punish people for non-evil acts (such as when Amos Miller was raided for selling milk, or Reuben King was raided for selling rifles), then we have the potential for a defensive war. Ideally, the state and federal agents will refrain from persecuting the people, and change can happen without any need for defensive measures. However, if the statists decide to enter the county and commit evil, and if the people have a “reasonable chance of success” in resisting (one of the principles of the Christian theory for just wars), then we have a conflict that every American who celebrates the Fourth of July should support.
There are other steps that can be added to this list. But this suffices to show that non-legislative theonomists are not merely philosophizing about hypothetical solutions. We have practical action plans. But our numbers are limited because most reject the position out-of-hand. However, we will continue to seek to be faithful.
A Word About Coalitions
Another critique against theonomists is that we are unwilling to form coalitions with others in order to “win.” After all, Trump was able to get homosexuals, abortion supporters, and even registered Democrats to vote for him. Go thou and do likewise.
I accept the necessity of working with others. However, we must always ask the following question: What are we working for? My impression is that I am being told that if I want to “win,” I need to lay aside the most fundamental belief that I hold regarding faithfulness and success, and accept Trump’s (or the Republican Party’s, or whomever’s) definition of “winning.” This is inane. Coalition for the sake of coalition is not advisable (cf. Ex. 23:2).
I am willing to work with anyone — Christian, atheist, Muslim, Republican, Democrat — to establish justice. For example, despite my opposition to the office of legislator, I invited Rep. Dave Zimmerman to join me on Amos Miller’s farm for an act of civil disobedience. I essentially called on him, and other legislators, to form a coalition with me in standing up against evil. They declined. I didn’t refuse to work with them; they refused to work with me. I was willing to form a coalition with them, but only if we were going to obey Christ and his commands. I remain open and available for such a task.
Charges that theonomists are unwilling to form coalitions with others are baseless. Such charges make for nice talking points, but carry little substance. Surely, Trump supporters would not form a coalition with non-legislative theonomists to argue against voting. And why should they? Their fundamental goal is to get people to vote for Trump! It makes little sense to critique people for failing to form coalitions with people who are working towards fundamentally different ends.
We do need coalitions, as “a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Eccles. 4:12). However, we need coalitions united in purpose. Thus, there is much work to do in forming local churches and networks working together towards the same end: “justice, and only justice” (Deut. 16:20).
Future of Christendom is located in southeastern Pennsylvania and is working to apply the practical steps outlined this article. If you live in the region and would like to get involved, please contact us. If you live outside the region, we’d still love to hear from you.
