Getting Back to the Eschatological Plot: Why “Table-Flipping Jesus” and other Intrusions are Paws Off for the Church in the Era of Common Grace
On April 12, 2021, Veggie Tale creator and co-host of the Holy Post podcast, Phil Vischer, found himself in the evangelical paddywhack machine with the following tweet:
If table-flipping Jesus is our favorite Jesus, we’ve lost the plot. @philvischer
The filmmaker, who obviously cares a lot about plots, added other “if/thens to the thread:
If Pharisee-insulting Jesus is our favorite Jesus, we’ve lost the plot. If the Jesus, who, out of love for others laid down his rights and picked up his cross — and called his followers to do the same – isn’t this the Jesus we’re devoted to, we’ve lost the plot. @philvischer
The tweet clearly hit an evangelical nerve. Phil, of Bob the Tomato fame, was awed that he could write a tweet that “offended EVERYONE.” (He has 46,000 followers). Most of the 234 comments he received were critical, if not harsh. Many sought to qualify his call to remember the plot…or outright disagreed with it. Here’s one:
The prob, Phil, is that you act as though are two different Christs. We must worship in Spirit AND Truth. That means that sometimes, tables must be flipped and somebody whipped to maintain both unity and purity.
That was one of the nicer ones. Two days later Phil posted an update:
Didn’t think would spark quite so much debate! Let me put it another way: When Paul said he identified with Christ, he didn’t say, “I bought a whip” or “I’m practicing table flipping.” He said, “I died.” “Love your enemies.” That’s a command. “Buy a whip.” Not a command. Phil’s bottom line: Everyone wants to flip tables. No one wants to carry a cross. @philvischer
Phil’s controversial thread is not a unique event. It is emblematic of growing frustration among American Christians with the fraying culture and perceived hostility of government. It also belies a fear that Christianity has gone “soft” and needs to resume a more muscular (masculine) posture vis a vis culture. While this tendency is often linked with the term “Christian Nationalism,” that is likely a misnomer, according to sociologists Whitehead and Perry. A better term might be “Christian nation-ism, which is a “commitment to a vision of American civic life and polity as closely intertwined with an identitarian, politically conservative strain of Christianity.” Whitehard parses further to mention Theonomy, the Christian theocrats who “would want the Bible principally to inform our national laws.” (Whitehead 2020, preface).
Survey data reveal a range of support for these and related views among Americans. While just 20 percent strongly hold Christian-ism views, another 32 percent accommodate them. (Whitehead 2020, introduction). In a review of Whitehead and Perry’s book, Tim Keller writes, “In some ways the Accommodators are key, because they create an environment in which nearly a third of the population, while not holding to strong Christian nationalist beliefs, provide sympathy and support to the more extreme adherents.” (Keller, 2020).
Given growing openness to a more muscular, if not state-run Christianity, this paper seeks to undergird Phil’s call to “remember the plot” with theological support. I will argue that the prolepsis of Christ’s use of a whip to clear the temple is a type of “ethical intrusion” hearkening of judgment to come. Considered along with Old Testament intrusions, such as invoking the judgment of the imprecatory psalms or the annihilation of enemies, imitating “table-turning” Jesus is out of bounds for Christians during the present era of common grace.
Recentering redemptive history under the Noahic – and not Mosaic – covenant provides fresh understanding of the imperative for the church to “run with patience” during its exile, while turning its cheek to enemies and remaining a faithful witness. Quoting Michael Horton, “this kingdom is given no commission to use physical force or violence (even to promote civic legislation to be enforced) but is certainly forbidden from doing so even at the cost of martyrdom. Its subjects may die for the faith, but not kill for it.” (Horton 2008, 279)
In defense of this thesis, the paper will consider aspects of covenantal discontinuity and intrusion ethics as they apply to the challenges of living as faithful witnesses in an increasingly secular, if not hostile world.
- Covenantal Discontinuity
In 1962, the Chicago Transit Authority released a blockbuster song entitled “Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?” The song is relevant to the 21st century church, which is looking at its eschatological wristwatch and getting impatient. Like children in the backseat of the car on a long trip, the church is tempted to whine, “Are we there yet?” The front seat driver answers encouragingly, “Just a little longer.”
The question “how long” is not a bad one – indeed, many a saint has begged the question. Job cries out in his agony (Job 7:19); David weeps in his sense of abandonment (Psalm 13:1-2), the prophets muttered it incessantly, and the white-robed martyrs groan it around the throne (Rev. 6:10). Taking matters into one’s hands to move things along is a different matter, however. Like Saul offering an unlawful sacrifice because Samuel was late (I Samuel 13:8), our tendency to push ahead the eschatological clock risks rebuke, if not judgment. Understanding what time it is, that is, where things stand in redemptive history and which covenant is operative, is necessary to quell impatience and live fruitful lives as faithful witnesses. To that end, the church needs to remind itself which “covenant and era in redemptive history” is operative – and the implications that go along with that understanding. Per Horton, we are living under the Noahic covenant in the era of common grace. (Horton 2008, 272)
“Ecclesiology sees in Scripture the story of one true God fulfilling one redemptive purpose on behalf of one covenant community.” (Swain 2021). The singular nature of one God/one redemptive purpose/one covenant community speaks to God’s unchanging plan to redeem a people for himself. Like a melody that floats above a changing landscape, the redemptive theme spans the two testaments and links the different covenants God “signed” with his people and the different eras they find themselves in.
Following the flood (Genesis 9) God’s covenant with Noah has enormous eschatological dimensions; it is a “covenantal foundation of God’s common grace in a world that lies under God’s curse.” (Swain 2021). God promises never to flood the entire earth and seals his promise with a rainbow. All humanity is party to this covenant and there are no performance strings attached. In this way, God’s covenant with Noah “guarantees the continuation of the cultural mandate after the fall and provides for the establishment of civil government.” It also “sets the stage” for the covenant of grace God will later make with Abraham.
The covenant theme continues in redemptive history, although the forms change. Following the exodus, God’s covenant of grace becomes formalized. It now includes a set of legislation, the decalogue, and an array of accompanying commandments governing both religious and civil life, and specifics the blessings and curses that attend to the covenant. Centuries later the prophets plead with God’s people to live up to their side of the agreement – or else. Presaging the end of the Mosaic covenant, Jeremiah is inspired to look forward to a new covenant that is written not on stone tablets but on human hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). At the last supper, Jesus defines this new covenant in his body and blood. The ripping of the temple curtain after he bows his head in death symbolizes the termination of the rule-based covenant (that no one could keep) and the inauguration of the covenant of grace now based on Christ’s righteousness alone. Despite the discontinuity of the different formulations, God’s melodic covenant of grace extends from the Fall into eternity. Grace remains in effect until the “stay” of judgment ends. Quoting Kline, delay and grace are happily “coterminous.” (Kline 1972, 155)
- Noah v. Moses
Setting aside the views of Theonomists, which we will discuss below, in the absence of the Mosaic law, the Noahic covenant defines and governs the present era. Said differently, unlike the Mosaic covenant, which was rendered obsolete by the cross, the Noahic covenant remains operative. Citing David VanDrunen, Andrew Walker’s critique of Theonomy rests on the understanding that natural law and common grace are the defining features of the Noahic covenant.
A look into these two concepts is helpful to our thesis. Embodying the eternal law, natural law is written into creation and therefore discernable to ordinary man (and holds them without excuse) (Romans 1:19-20). Beholding nature, man is able to discern nature’s laws, which provide a suitable basis for ordering human life along the norms and wisdom God built into the foundation of the world and which man can ascertain through his senses and his reason. It did not take the Mosaic law to tell us that murder is wrong; it was wrong from the beginning, and Cain knew it when he killed his brother Abel. (Walker 2021).
Common grace comes on the heels of the Fall. God did not immediately annihilate Adam and his progeny, as he was entitled to do under the covenant of works implied by the command, “Do not eat the apple lest you die.” Rather, God in his grace gave a “stay of execution.” (Horton 2008. 274). Although original sin is passed from Adam to all of humanity, God continues to provide his gracious “stay” to each human baby born. Jesus affirms the ruling ethic of grace in Matt 5:44-46. “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?”
Sun and rain are unconditional gifts of God to all people. In delaying judgment, God graciously gives good things to all, regardless of their moral rectitude. In the same way, God’s children are expected follow the Father’s example of doing good to all, while suspending ultimate judgment. How long is that? According to Jesus, his followers are to love and pray for their enemies as God continues to give sunshine and rain to all.
Two objections arise at this point, one narrow and the other quite broad. The narrow objection, raised by Shelton in a critique of VanDrunen, is one of over-reach. While there is general agreement that the Noahic covenant provides a “preliminary word about government authority,” VanDrunen stretches it further, he claims, like a thin blanket over a large bed. VanDrunen’s “regulative principle” of politics would severely limit government’s role in society to anything beyond the protection of life. According to Shelton, this “modest political vision….can’t properly account for the kinds of full-orbed good governments that Christians have historically recognized.” (Shelton 2020).
If the first objection is one of degree, the second is one of kind. Rejecting the Noahic/natural law/common grace understanding altogether, Theonomists argue instead that the Mosaic covenant remains in effect. T. David Gordon, in a 1994 article in the WTJ, describes three legs of the Theonomist stool and offers a critique. The first is an argument from necessity, that specific guidance regarding civil government is needed and the Sinai legislation is the only place in scripture that civil society can turn for such guidance. Related to the argument from necessity is a distorted view of the sufficiency of scripture. Theonomists contend that scripture is a “sufficient guide to the various departments of life, in all their specificity.” (Gordon, 1994). By contrast, a Reformed view is more nuanced; the scriptures are sufficient with regard to all we need to know about our communion with God – not with regard to everything there is to know in the world. Finally, Theonomists misunderstand Jesus’ affirmation in Matthew 5:17-21 that he has fulfilled the law and that its jots and tittles will not pass away, which is the cornerstone to their assertion that the Mosaic law remains in effect. Gordon unpacks these fallacies from a hermeneutical and exegetical perspective, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
For our purposes, the key element in Gordon’s critique is that a Theonomic approach strips the laws out of God’s covenant with Moses and seeks to apply them beyond the boundaries of the covenant that originally enfolded them. As Gordon states, “it is the belief that the Sinai legislation, even in its judicial dimensions, is legislation which is well-suited for, and intended to be observed by, all nations and peoples. Now plainly, the duties of a given covenant are only obligatory on those who are parties to the covenant. For Theonomy, however, all peoples in all times are obliged to these duties.” (Gordon 1994)
Drawing on Gordon’s work, Walker updates the critique for our day. “Theonomy is a facile hermeneutic that channels an eschatology of triumph. Historically undesirable, it instrumentalizes religion, blurs church-state relationships, and jeopardizes religious dissent. And it proves unnecessary because of how other covenants showcase the benefits of common grace and natural law.” (Walker 2021). One need look no further than 16th century Europe or modern-day Pakistan to envision what this might look like for the non-believer. Decrying the destruction of her convent in 1525, German Franciscan nun Caritas Pirckheimer penned her in her journal, “We hope…that the honorable City Council will not apply pressure in matters of conscience.” (Wilkin 2019, 50).
In sum, this section has endeavored to situate our present moment – a moment of great disenchantment where many may be tempted to “take up a whip” to bring about the kingdom of God – in the proper redemptive era. Taking a covenantal – rather than legislative – approach situates the church under the Noahic covenant. Itself a covenant of grace, the Noahic covenant permits the flourishing of both wheat and tares and the pursuit of the cultural mandate. Under this covenant – sealed by God’s blessed rainbow – common grace defines the posture of the church vis a vis culture, and natural law serves as a sufficient basis for the conduct of nations – while holding them without excuse – until the “stay” is lifted.
In response to Vischer’s plea to ‘remember the plot’ one commenter tweeted:
If Gospel Jesus is not also the Revelation Jesus, you’ve lost the plot. To which Vischer wisely replied: That is not the part of the story we’re in and not the role Jesus calls us to play.
- Gospel Jesus v. Revelation Jesus
While this paper takes primarily a theological and not exegetical approach to the question of the “two Jesus’s,” a brief look at the scriptural text sets the stage for the discussion of intrusion ethics. All four Gospels contain an account of Jesus’ turning over the tables of money-changers doing a brisk trade in the Temple Court of the Gentiles during Passover week. The synoptics place the dramatic incident at the end of their accounts following Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem and before the Last Supper (Matt. 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17 and Luke 19:45-46.). In the Gospel of John, the account is mentioned near the beginning of the narrative. (John 2:13-22).
Instructive for our purposes is the account in Mark because it follows the account of Jesus cursing the fig tree and causing it to wither and die – “the only miracle of destruction in the canonical Gospels.” Using a “sandwich complex,” (A1—cursing of the fig tree, vv. 12–14; B—clearing the temple, vv. 15–19; A2—withering of the fig tree, vv. 20–21) Mark appears to use the fate of the fig tree to foreshadow the judgment soon to befall the “unfruitful” Temple. (Edwards 2002, 340).
Often described as a temple cleansing, the clearing of the temple was more akin to a fatal blow. Jesus “attacks the very commerce upon which the temple cult depended, laying an ax at the root of the temple as an institution. Together with the subsequent events of Holy Week, Mark portrays the clearing of the temple not as its restoration but as its dissolution.” (Edwards 2002, 340). Indeed, the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.
In Matthew and Luke’s accounts, Jesus’ actions are accompanied by a verbal denunciation (“It is written, My House shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den or robbers.”) based on Isaiah 57:6: In John’s account, the prophetic emphasis lies with the disciples’ later connecting the act with Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
Taken together – the symbolism of the withered fig tree and the prophetic fulfillment of scripture – strongly indicate that Jesus’ overturning money-changing tables was neither a capricious act, nor in line with the normal ethics of his teaching or behavior. Rather it was a prolepsis, a visible demonstration of something yet to occur. As such, it is not an event or action or approach that Christians should emulate. In fact, they dare not.
- Intrusion ethics
Having established that the present moment is governed by common grace – in which Christians are to imitate God by living out of an ethic of charity toward their neighbors, including enemies, we now turn to those other scriptural passages that indicate that an entirely different ethic playing out. Like Jesus taking a whip, the disturbing events occur either at the direction or instigation of God himself. The question is – in what category do we put so-called “texts of terror” and are they normative?
To set the stage, it is important to free redemptive history from the shackles of modern notions of linear progress. As Horton argues in Divine Drama, while the covenant of grace extends in linear fashion from Noah to consummation, “it is a real deliverance only because of vertical intrusions.” At various “signal points” chronos is intersected, or interrupted, by kairos through the workings of the Holy Spirit. “The age to come,” argues Horton, “is not only horizontal/chronological, but also vertical/cataclysmic. (Horton 2002, 39-40)
Put forth by Kline, the concept of intrusion ethics fits within this more fulsome understanding of how Christ’s kingdom advances. Memorably named the “Perez,” the child who “broke out first” (Gen. 38:29), intrusions represent a vertical breach of chronos by the Holy Spirit who intrudes “the power, principle and reality of the consummation into the period of delay.” (Kline 1972, 156). Intrusions force open a window through which can be seen glimpses of the scabbard hanging over the human race. Intrusions are terrifying because they have “realized eschatology” at their core. (Kline 1992, 158).
With a strong whiff of judgment, divine intrusions embody the ethic of consummation, in which God is completely justified for bringing about the judgment he graciously delayed after the fall. To advance kingdom purposes, the intrusion suspends, in limited fashion, the redemptive status quo governed by common grace. Examples of ethical intrusions include Israel’s genocidal conquest of Canaan, the “herem” acts of devotion, and the image of toes dangling in baby’s blood described in the imprecatory Psalms. However blood-thirsty the intrusions appear, they demonstrate restraint on God’s part. “As terrifying as these prolepses are, they always fall far short of the Parousia-judgment that might with justice have fallen on all humanity after the fall or at any point since.” (Horton 2008, 276).
Accepting the intrusions as eschatological windows – and not the whims of a mercurial god – requires “the highest outreach of faith.” (Kline 1992, 164) God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is particularly discomfiting because it is so personal – and seems to go against every lesson God has taught Abraham in his long journey of faith. Kline’s insight into this seemingly barbaric command is trenchant: “It was the ethics of the Cross, itself an intrusion of final judgment into mid-history, that was intruded into the Old Testament age in the divine command to sacrifice Isaac.” (Kline 1972, 169).
Without an understanding of this vertical ethical breach – of the tendency for consummation to spill out, as something that simply can’t be contained – Christians fall into two types of errors. First is the temptation to “write-off” the Old Testament’s bloody lapses as evidence of that the God of the Old Testament was vengeful, while Jesus is kind and merciful. Said differently, it belies a view of the old covenant as sternly punitive and the new covenant as warmly progressive. Arising either from discomfort with a view of God as judge, or from historical atrocities of Christians waging ‘holy war’ against infidels throughout Christendom, these “blanket condemnations…miss the subtlety and drama of God’s unfolding purposes.” (Horton 2008, 278). Even as the covenant of grace remains firmly in place, the form it takes changes as redemptive history advances. Moreover, ‘meek and mild’ Jesus issued stern warnings about coming judgment, which he will personally preside over. “If we have trouble with Joshua and his campaigns, we should be more unsettled by Jesus.” (Horton, 2008, 274).
The second error is to embrace the intrusions as normative and inviting our emulation and response. Both Kline and Horton are emphatic that jumping “the eschatological gun” is a grave error worthy of Jesus’ rebuke of the sons of Thunder for calling down fire on unrepentant towns. To emulate God’s intrusion ethics – in the wrong redemptive season – is no trifling sin; it is to “assume the prerogative of God to abrogate the principal of common grace.” (Kline 1992, 171). That said, the church does keep “the future judgment on the world’s radar screen, while nevertheless announcing rather than invoking it.” (Horton 2008, 279)
Intrusion ethics preserves and affirms the normative stance of common grace. Understanding that intrusions are the sole prerogative of God – the “holy ground” of action – checks the temptation to bring about judgment ahead of God’s timetable. Whereas the Theonomist would take the reins of judgment and assert control over unbelievers, the government and civil life, intrusion ethics keeps the church grounded in the humble neighborliness of common grace. A number of public and political stances flow from this understanding: religious liberty for all, reliance on natural law to guide jurisprudence and penology, and freedom to develop culture. Punitive Islamic-style judgment is not one of them. “Appealing to divine promises of land or final justice would avail nothing in the court of common grace and common justice.” (Horton 2008, 276).
At present, God continues to sow the fields of the kingdom as he builds his covenant church; his gracious delay also contains the invitation to repentance. We dare not trample the tender crops in impatience for the harvest. “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord.” Amos 5:18.
- Implications of Intrusion Ethics for the Visible Church
This paper has sought to provide theological support for a stance against flipping tables or taking up a sword against culture. By hewing to the two-testament redemptive “plot,” with different costume changes, a case has been made that, despite the dark clouds overhead, the era of common grace is still very much in effect. Recognizing afresh its eschatological coordinates, the church must resist the perennial temptation to “found matters of present Christian duty upon cases of intrusion ethics.” (Kline1972, 171).
A final question pertains to the implications of this thesis for individual Christians and the visible church in times of strain. Rather than take up a sword, Jesus commands his disciples to take up their cross and follow the blood-stained footsteps of their Master. The narrow path of the disciple is a journey of paradoxes, of darkness before light, of perplexity and temptation, of suffering before triumph. A pilgrim’s journey of never feeling quite at home; the immigrant experience of being mis-understood and rejected.
Hewing patiently to the “race marked out for us,” (Hebrews 12:1) the Christian has many quotidian things to do: respect unbelieving authorities, vote in imperfect elections, render unto Caesar what Caesar’s and above all, loves both neighbor and the “brotherhood.” (She might even have to wear a mask!) Like hopeful farmers, God’s covenant people scatter a kingdom of seeds over a wide and varied terrain (Matthew 13:8). It is mostly an inglorious existence, fraught with affliction, yet it is achieving for saints who persevere “an eternal weight of glory.” (2 Cor 4:17).
Intrusion ethics also suggest implications for the church. The gathered assembly of believers is strengthened by reaffirming its eschatological coordinates as a covenantal community existing in the already and non-yet of redemptive history. Still far from home, the church in exile is commanded to seek the welfare of the earthly city (Jeremiah 29:4-7) while on the way to the celestial one. Along route, the church “must constantly take care to avoid confusing its current life with its eschatological goal and fulfillment…Even in those places where Christianity still plays a vital, if diminishing, cultural role, we do well to remember that as the ‘people of God’ we are set apart, with our deepest identity derived from, and our ultimate allegiance oriented to another city.” (Sherman 2015, chapter 4).
The largely invisible church tabernacles lightly. Word and Sacrament, its visible marks, are deeply cherished, along with [in person] fellowship. “Between the death of Christ and the last day, it is only by the gracious anticipation of the last things that Christians are privileged to live in visible fellowship with other Christians. It is by the grace of God that a congregation is permitted to gather visibly in this world to share God’s Word and Sacrament.” (Bonhoeffer 1954, 3).
The third visible mark — church discipline – takes on fresh importance in light of intrusion ethics (Horton 2016, 311). As Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 5:11-13, the church is empowered judgment only within its ranks, leaving the judgment of outsiders to God. Sadly many times the church does the exact opposite, judging the culture while letting abuse run rampant in the church. Hence it is unsurprising that culture remains unmoved, if not hostile, to the claims of Christ. By first taking out the “log” in our own eye and reclaiming this third mark, which is vital to the visibility and integrity of the church, the American church may yet regain its lampstand in a darkening world.
Glimpsing how things unfold in Revelation, the conversion of the nations comes not by force, but by the way of “faithful witness and death” (Bauckham 2007, 87). “While rejecting the apocalyptic militancy that called for literal holy war against Rome, John’s message is not ‘Do not resist.’ It is ‘Resist! – but by witness and martyrdom, not violence.” This is good news to present day Sons of Thunder. The opposite of a muscular Theonomistic exertion of power is not passivity, but rather a muscular resistance against “the idolatry of the pagan state.” (Bauchham 2007, 92).
On the fearful Day of the Lord, the era of common grace expires. At that time, the eschatology embedded in the “shell” of the intrusions will become normative. “When our Father shall say, “It is done,” we must listen to his voice. But if we are listening to him today, we are still seeking by his grace to be good Samaritans.” (Kline 1972, 171)
- Conclusion
This paper set out to counter current impulses in the American church to get ahead of God and start “flipping tables.” By taking a primarily theological approach, it has shown that this response is out of bounds for Christians because the gracious interlude of the Noahic covenant – characterized by natural law and common grace – remains operative and binding. To quell the instinct to emulate the judgment, coercion and even violence found in certain passages of scripture, the doctrine of intrusion ethics is instructive. As vertical breaches, in which Kairos intersects Chronos, divine intrusions suspend the ethic of common grace to advance redemptive purposes. Embodying a limited consummation justice, the intrusions are the prerogative of God, and, therefore are not to be emulated by disciples during the era of common grace.
In keeping with the eschatological plot, the church as faithful witness nevertheless plays an important role:
- Rather than exert coercive power, the church is called to a muscular resistance.
- Rather than invoke the coming judgment, the church is to announce it.
- Rather than judge the world, the church is to discipline itself.
Resource List
Edwards, J. R. The Gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002.
Gordon, T. David. “A Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy.” 1994. Westminster Theological Journal 56 no 1 (Spring): 23-43.
https://web-a-ebscohost-com.rts.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=37969412-a1e1-420b-b217-0c8813d2ab23%40sessionmgr4008
Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Horton, Michael S., “The Church.” In Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by, Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, 311-340, CITY Baker Academic, 2016.
Keller, Timothy. 2021. “A Book Review on the Topic of Christian Nationalism.” A Review of Taking American Back for God, Christian Nationalism in the United States by Samuel L. Perry and Andrew Whitehead. Life in the Gospel, New York: Gospel in Life, 2021. https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/book-review-on-the-topic-of-christian-nationalism/?fbclid=IwAR0GEQTa5YtcUEh15Qqr8XOOIg3E6oxZRWZJiJ3MMPYTy5wO3ggDw5i4OUY
Shelton, John. “Politics After the Noahic Covenant?” The Gospel Coalition. May 13, 2020. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/politics-noahic-covenant-vandrunen/
Sherman, Robert. Covenant, Community and the Spirit: A Trinitarian Theology of the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2015.
Swain, Scott. Class notes. Ecclesiology and Sacraments. Reformed Theological Seminary, March 2021.
Walker, Andrew T. “American Culture is Broken. Is Theonomy the Answer?” The Gospel Coalition, March 31, 2021. https://eppc.org/publications/american-culture-is-broken-is-theonomy-the-answer/
Whitehead, Andrew L. and Samuel L. Perry. Taking America Back for God; Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Wilkin, Robert Louis. Liberty in the Things of God, The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2019.
[1]