What do you think?
Rate this book
Slaying Leviathan: Limited Government and Resistance in the Christian Tradition
Christians first expressed these political truths under Caesars, kings, popes, and emperors. We need them in the age of presidents. Leviathan is rising again, and the first weapon we must recover is the longstanding Christian tradition of resisting governmental overreach.
Our bloated bureaucratic state would have been unrecognizable to the founders, and our acquiescence to its encroachments on liberty would have infuriated them. But here is the point; our Leviathan would not have surprised them. They were well acquainted with the tendency of governments to turn “Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.”
In Slaying Leviathan, historian Glenn S. Sunshine surveys some of the stories and key elements of Christian political thought from Augustine to the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the audiobook introduces theories of limited government that were synthesized into a coherent political philosophy by John Locke. Locke, of course, influenced the American founders and was, like us, fighting against the spirit of Leviathan in his day. But his is only one of the many stories in this audiobook.
Our bloated bureaucratic state would have been unrecognizable to the founders, and our acquiescence to its encroachments on liberty would have infuriated them. But here is the point; our Leviathan would not have surprised them. They were well acquainted with the tendency of governments to turn “Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.”
In Slaying Leviathan, historian Glenn S. Sunshine surveys some of the stories and key elements of Christian political thought from Augustine to the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the audiobook introduces theories of limited government that were synthesized into a coherent political philosophy by John Locke. Locke, of course, influenced the American founders and was, like us, fighting against the spirit of Leviathan in his day. But his is only one of the many stories in this audiobook.
Audible Audio
Published November 29, 2021
164 people are currently reading
1085 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews
January 15, 2021
Super helpful. History is in itself an argument against tyranny.
Recommended to all who want to learn more about us, Romans 13, and tyrants.
Recommended to all who want to learn more about us, Romans 13, and tyrants.
February 27, 2025
Started over 2/24/25
This book is preaching to the choir. As one sitting in the (Reformed Protestant) alto section, I found much to agree with not only in his historical development but in his general arguments for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I do think choosing a publisher like Canon, for a project of this nature will affect its reach and acceptance. I also think Sunshine got away with some opining that another publisher might have nipped in the bud.
Tracing the argument historically back through Luther and Calvin's understanding of Romans 13 and the rights therein could backfire. If their exegesis of that passage is wrong, the whole discussion of Protestant Resistance Theory fails. Their foundational treatment that the lesser magistrate has the right to hold the higher magistrate accountable becomes so much more in Sunshine's unfolding of history and I wonder if the whole thing isn't a house of cards.
That said, I think Sunshine pulled together many vital strands, particularly from Western Europe - France, Germany, Switzerland, and, especially England - to lay a groundwork of explaining the American Declaration and Constitution. He is a clear writer of complex historical events and ideas.
I enjoyed listening to this book, but I continue to wonder how friends who are Roman Catholic or Anabaptist would read it. Again, it seems to be preaching to a very specific choir and, as such, limits its reach, reception, and entrance into the greater conversation.
This book is preaching to the choir. As one sitting in the (Reformed Protestant) alto section, I found much to agree with not only in his historical development but in his general arguments for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I do think choosing a publisher like Canon, for a project of this nature will affect its reach and acceptance. I also think Sunshine got away with some opining that another publisher might have nipped in the bud.
Tracing the argument historically back through Luther and Calvin's understanding of Romans 13 and the rights therein could backfire. If their exegesis of that passage is wrong, the whole discussion of Protestant Resistance Theory fails. Their foundational treatment that the lesser magistrate has the right to hold the higher magistrate accountable becomes so much more in Sunshine's unfolding of history and I wonder if the whole thing isn't a house of cards.
That said, I think Sunshine pulled together many vital strands, particularly from Western Europe - France, Germany, Switzerland, and, especially England - to lay a groundwork of explaining the American Declaration and Constitution. He is a clear writer of complex historical events and ideas.
I enjoyed listening to this book, but I continue to wonder how friends who are Roman Catholic or Anabaptist would read it. Again, it seems to be preaching to a very specific choir and, as such, limits its reach, reception, and entrance into the greater conversation.
May 7, 2021
A helpful historical review of Protestant resistance theory. Knowing this history is the first step (though not the last) in slaying Leviathan: the great bloated federal government that now bosses us around.
This book is largely descriptive instead of prescriptive. For instance, Sunshine notes that some thinkers allowed the civilian to take up arms against tyrants, while others insisted that resistance ought to be made only by the lesser magistrate. Well, I want to know, which principle, if either, is biblical? Don't just tell us how various opinions developed over the centuries, tell us whether, how, and why these opinions are rooted in Scripture, and how we can apply them today.
This book primarily made me eager to find one that discusses where the rubber actually meets the road.
This book is largely descriptive instead of prescriptive. For instance, Sunshine notes that some thinkers allowed the civilian to take up arms against tyrants, while others insisted that resistance ought to be made only by the lesser magistrate. Well, I want to know, which principle, if either, is biblical? Don't just tell us how various opinions developed over the centuries, tell us whether, how, and why these opinions are rooted in Scripture, and how we can apply them today.
This book primarily made me eager to find one that discusses where the rubber actually meets the road.
July 1, 2023
A helpful little book on the history of Western Christianity’s view of government and resistance to it. The first half of the book moves slowly as there is not as much on these topics in history, but by the mid-point (at the Protestant Reformation) the book becomes much more interesting. Most of this book is history, yet the author gives his views at the end of each chapter.
December 20, 2020
Slaying Leviathan is an introduction to the Christian political tradition. Glenn Sunshine surveys the history of Christian political thought, from the early church to the Constitution of the United States. It is a broad survey, so he rarely goes deep, but he goes wide enough that there are probably some new things that most readers haven’t encountered—at least that was true in my case.
He makes the case that limited government is a fruit of Protestant theology, and came to full flower in the United States Constitution. We’ve sadly not flexed these political muscles enough in America, and they have atrophied. We have largely lost the understanding of this heritage in the American church, so we do not realize that resistance to tyranny is actually a fruit of the Christian political tradition.
Christians have been defying tyrants for millennia, but we’ve been leaning on Romans 13 in America, in ways that were easy to understand and do when the civil magistrate is largely obedient and just. So our default response to a just magistrate has been easy deference.
But now that we’re awakening to the unrighteousness of many of our civil magistrates, we’re unprepared for any other response than deference and compliance. This book is a well-timed reminder, that there is more to the Christian tradition than what too many today, has turned into servility.
He makes the case that limited government is a fruit of Protestant theology, and came to full flower in the United States Constitution. We’ve sadly not flexed these political muscles enough in America, and they have atrophied. We have largely lost the understanding of this heritage in the American church, so we do not realize that resistance to tyranny is actually a fruit of the Christian political tradition.
Christians have been defying tyrants for millennia, but we’ve been leaning on Romans 13 in America, in ways that were easy to understand and do when the civil magistrate is largely obedient and just. So our default response to a just magistrate has been easy deference.
But now that we’re awakening to the unrighteousness of many of our civil magistrates, we’re unprepared for any other response than deference and compliance. This book is a well-timed reminder, that there is more to the Christian tradition than what too many today, has turned into servility.
October 22, 2020
Excellent. Very clear explanation of how we got here and where exactly we are. Lots of new information for me on the history of political theory. It's certainly not my first subject of choice, but Sunshine managed to keep me engaged so that when we got to conclusions and applications, I was tracking. Made me appreciate how remarkable the U.S. founding documents are in the context of Western political thought through history and how tragic it is that we have virtually shredded them.
November 16, 2022
Good historical overview.
July 16, 2024
This is a brief but informative journey through church history to explore the relationship between the church and government, with a view particularly to the occasions when it is appropriate for a Christian to resist governmental authority, or, in this case, when it is right to slay leviathan. Released in 2020, it would seem that Sunshine is responding particularly to instances of government overreach during the covid pandemic.
The book begins with the early church, in particular Augustine's "City of God," and leads us up to the major influences behind the writing of the US Constitution. The question running throughout is whether the king has an absolute power over his subjects, or whether a transcendent power exists to which even the king is subject, and which then also provides foundation for resistance to tyranny. If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is "unalienable," then those rights are "pre-political and thus not subject to state authority." (158). In other words, the state is never justified in removing or curtailing these rights.
It has often been stated that our constitution was influenced more by enlightenment thinking than by Christianity, but it's probably better to say that both had a strong influence. John Locke was apparently not a Christian, but he did believe in the existence of God and much of his thought was influenced by Christian political theory that preceded him (p.156). In any case, it is clear that our nation today has a profound misunderstanding of what the founders understood to be the meaning of "liberty." Liberty is not freedom from restraint, but freedom to pursue virtue, which was understood to be essential for the health and longevity of the nation. "True liberty must therefore be undergirded by a virtuous population, and liberty must be used to develop and promote virtue." (p.157). Sadly, the rise of moral and cultural relativism has basically killed any coherent notion of liberty today.
The book has definitely stimulated my interest in this topic, but in the end I was left unsure as to whether Sunshine is calling us to resist today's government or not. In the epilogue he gives some suggestions – we should vote, write letters to the government, educate, and seek to sway public opinion. Yes, but isn't that what we've always done? What's different about our current cultural moment, especially now that covid has passed and the government doesn't seem quite as interested in whether churches gather or not? I would have also liked to see a more extended treatment of Biblical and theological arguments used to justify the American revolution (the mother of all resistance to government), but that's probably a subject for another book...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
The book begins with the early church, in particular Augustine's "City of God," and leads us up to the major influences behind the writing of the US Constitution. The question running throughout is whether the king has an absolute power over his subjects, or whether a transcendent power exists to which even the king is subject, and which then also provides foundation for resistance to tyranny. If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is "unalienable," then those rights are "pre-political and thus not subject to state authority." (158). In other words, the state is never justified in removing or curtailing these rights.
It has often been stated that our constitution was influenced more by enlightenment thinking than by Christianity, but it's probably better to say that both had a strong influence. John Locke was apparently not a Christian, but he did believe in the existence of God and much of his thought was influenced by Christian political theory that preceded him (p.156). In any case, it is clear that our nation today has a profound misunderstanding of what the founders understood to be the meaning of "liberty." Liberty is not freedom from restraint, but freedom to pursue virtue, which was understood to be essential for the health and longevity of the nation. "True liberty must therefore be undergirded by a virtuous population, and liberty must be used to develop and promote virtue." (p.157). Sadly, the rise of moral and cultural relativism has basically killed any coherent notion of liberty today.
The book has definitely stimulated my interest in this topic, but in the end I was left unsure as to whether Sunshine is calling us to resist today's government or not. In the epilogue he gives some suggestions – we should vote, write letters to the government, educate, and seek to sway public opinion. Yes, but isn't that what we've always done? What's different about our current cultural moment, especially now that covid has passed and the government doesn't seem quite as interested in whether churches gather or not? I would have also liked to see a more extended treatment of Biblical and theological arguments used to justify the American revolution (the mother of all resistance to government), but that's probably a subject for another book...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
December 31, 2022
This is a very helpful historical study tracing the history of resistance theory from Augustine to Locke. One particularly important phase in this history is the specifically Protestant resistance theory that arose as Protestants were being persecuted and killed by Roman Catholic temporal powers. The basic idea is that civil magistrates and kings have delegated authority, granted to them by the consent of the people, and are to be obeyed only to the degree that they are rightly using their authority. This then logically creates a theoretical right to resist tyranny. This theory eventually became a key part of the impetus for the political theory behind the American founding, albeit in a somewhat secularized form. Sunshine states that Calvin, for example, appealed to the fact that God asked Israel three times if they accepted the covenant as the basis for the consent of the governed. But I get nervous about this facile appeal to the special redemptive covenant between God and Israel (“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt”) as the basis for all governments, even those that cannot claim a special redemptive covenant with God. In my opinion, it would be more sound to follow David VanDrunen’s reasoning, where he appeals to a natural law/rights argument grounded in common grace for the concept of the consent of the governed. Nevertheless, one cannot avoid the fact that, historically, this is how Protestant political theory developed. I can accept the conclusion but would want to reconsider the exegesis behind it. Anyway, neat little historical study.
May 30, 2021
This was a helpful book in many respects. It is written with a very clear and easy style that helped me read through it rather quickly. Sunshine gives a decent overview of the history of Christian political theology leading up to the American Founding. I appreciated this very introductory survey that put a lot of the big swathes of history together into a coherent manner. Because Sunshine's area of expertise is French Reformed history, those sections were more satisfactory (especially the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, and the French view of the doctrine of the "lesser magistrate") than his description of the early and medieval church. I was especially thankful for his broad engagement with the two kingdoms views of Reformers like Luther and Calvin and argued that those early Protestants would not necessarily endorse some later Protestant views, especially those of the radical Puritans in Britain, or the resistance theory that would impact that the US.
I was surprised by a number of omissions in Sunshine's survey. Probably the most significant figure that had absolutely no discussion was Thomas Aquinas. This is a major detraction from the quality of this book. I'm also surprised that he did not discuss the views of Thomas Erastus, from which Erastianism gets its name. He was a Heidelberg Reformer and his thought had very important impact on some European states, especially Britain. There's not really much in the way of a discussion of the English Reformation, the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity by Richard Hooker, or the distinctions between Geneva and Zurich. Of the latter, he does speak of the rise of Protestant covenantalism in Zurich's Zwingli, but he doesn't mention the important role that Heinrich Bullinger played both in Zurich and in England with his high view of the magistrate. There was barely any mention of Peter Martyr Vermigli and I don't recall seeing Martin Bucer's name in the book.
Sunshine argues that the best political philosophy that will help us slay the reborn Leviathan is John Locke's notions of toleration and government. He makes a regular point to note that, in spite of Locke's Enlightenment secularisation of politics, his view is the best crystallization of Christian political thought. I don't agree with this at all and find it odd to argue in light of the publisher, Canon Press's, more theonomic views. Sunshine therefore gives some credence to the Christian founding of America, because Locke was so influential on the Founders, and he was essentially Christian.
I was also perplexed by his argument that the traditional two kingdoms position only works in a monarchy and not a republic like the US (why not discuss the UK or Canada?). He didn't prove his point at all. He made an appeal to the Transformationalism of more modern thinkers like Abraham Kuyper and Reinhold Niebuhr as a potential way forward for Christian political thought today. But I'm not sure why Transformationalism is any more a likely candidate, over the traditional two kingdoms approach. He didn't make his case, and if anything, he reaffirmed that the two kingdoms view is not only of a venerable tradition in church history, but it provides a helpful roadmap for the future. What was frustrating about his discussion of two kingdoms doctrine was that he seemed to conflate the traditional view with the more radical approach by some thinkers connected to Westminster Seminary in California. It's strange, though, because he'd just described Calvin's views on this matter and did so accurately. Then he turned to critique the radical view.
I'll finish with two more minor critiques, the first deals with the relationship between the American Founders and the Deists. He argues that someone like Jefferson was not properly speaking a Deist. He was rather a "Unitarian rationalist" and believed that God did intervene at some points in history. Studies of Deism, however, show a range of moderate and extreme versions of Deism. Sometimes these differences could be seen in the thought of one figure, like Benjamin Franklin, over the course of his life. So I'm not convinced that Jefferson wasn't a Deist. The second critique is that Sunshine would make many assertions without much in the way of footnoting. There were a couple of points that he made where I wished I could have chased it up in a source. He did provide a bibliography, but I was less than satisfied with some of his recommendations -- especially Eric Metaxas' hagiography of the Founders. Why include this historically dubious book, but not include scholars like Oliver O'Donovan!
So all in all, I'm glad I read this book, and could broadly recommend it to those interested in the question of Protestant resistance to government. But I'd want to supplement it with some more reliable sources like Bradford Littlejohn's book on the two kingdoms.
I was surprised by a number of omissions in Sunshine's survey. Probably the most significant figure that had absolutely no discussion was Thomas Aquinas. This is a major detraction from the quality of this book. I'm also surprised that he did not discuss the views of Thomas Erastus, from which Erastianism gets its name. He was a Heidelberg Reformer and his thought had very important impact on some European states, especially Britain. There's not really much in the way of a discussion of the English Reformation, the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity by Richard Hooker, or the distinctions between Geneva and Zurich. Of the latter, he does speak of the rise of Protestant covenantalism in Zurich's Zwingli, but he doesn't mention the important role that Heinrich Bullinger played both in Zurich and in England with his high view of the magistrate. There was barely any mention of Peter Martyr Vermigli and I don't recall seeing Martin Bucer's name in the book.
Sunshine argues that the best political philosophy that will help us slay the reborn Leviathan is John Locke's notions of toleration and government. He makes a regular point to note that, in spite of Locke's Enlightenment secularisation of politics, his view is the best crystallization of Christian political thought. I don't agree with this at all and find it odd to argue in light of the publisher, Canon Press's, more theonomic views. Sunshine therefore gives some credence to the Christian founding of America, because Locke was so influential on the Founders, and he was essentially Christian.
I was also perplexed by his argument that the traditional two kingdoms position only works in a monarchy and not a republic like the US (why not discuss the UK or Canada?). He didn't prove his point at all. He made an appeal to the Transformationalism of more modern thinkers like Abraham Kuyper and Reinhold Niebuhr as a potential way forward for Christian political thought today. But I'm not sure why Transformationalism is any more a likely candidate, over the traditional two kingdoms approach. He didn't make his case, and if anything, he reaffirmed that the two kingdoms view is not only of a venerable tradition in church history, but it provides a helpful roadmap for the future. What was frustrating about his discussion of two kingdoms doctrine was that he seemed to conflate the traditional view with the more radical approach by some thinkers connected to Westminster Seminary in California. It's strange, though, because he'd just described Calvin's views on this matter and did so accurately. Then he turned to critique the radical view.
I'll finish with two more minor critiques, the first deals with the relationship between the American Founders and the Deists. He argues that someone like Jefferson was not properly speaking a Deist. He was rather a "Unitarian rationalist" and believed that God did intervene at some points in history. Studies of Deism, however, show a range of moderate and extreme versions of Deism. Sometimes these differences could be seen in the thought of one figure, like Benjamin Franklin, over the course of his life. So I'm not convinced that Jefferson wasn't a Deist. The second critique is that Sunshine would make many assertions without much in the way of footnoting. There were a couple of points that he made where I wished I could have chased it up in a source. He did provide a bibliography, but I was less than satisfied with some of his recommendations -- especially Eric Metaxas' hagiography of the Founders. Why include this historically dubious book, but not include scholars like Oliver O'Donovan!
So all in all, I'm glad I read this book, and could broadly recommend it to those interested in the question of Protestant resistance to government. But I'd want to supplement it with some more reliable sources like Bradford Littlejohn's book on the two kingdoms.
January 30, 2025
First listened on audio with Matt during a drive in 2020. Then listened and read bits in the paperback for a local book club in 2024.
Limited government is a biblically sound principle - the only political position possible for those who will not allow the state to be god. There can be biblically sound reasons for resisting or replacing established governments that become lawless; Romans 13 is not the only applicable passage to citizens and governments
Canon+. Conservative Minds Book Club. 5x5: Politics.
Limited government is a biblically sound principle - the only political position possible for those who will not allow the state to be god. There can be biblically sound reasons for resisting or replacing established governments that become lawless; Romans 13 is not the only applicable passage to citizens and governments
Canon+. Conservative Minds Book Club. 5x5: Politics.
October 8, 2022
Excellent. Glenn Sunshine does a good job tracing the relationship between church and state from the early church through the reformation, the enlightenment, to the founding of America. Suffice it to say that the church has a perennial struggle with obedience to Romans 13 amidst rulership under various government systems. It’s a solid defense of Protestant resistance theology. I wish I had known the things in this book prior to 2020.
December 5, 2022
Very good book. Listened to the audio book and followed along in my copy. I learned a lot and was encouraged to continue to think about government and how to relate as a Christian. The opening chapter and the epilogue were amazing. Especially the epilogue. Which in my opinion was the best part of the book and worth the price of the book. Recommended
November 2, 2020
Leviathan shut down the church in the name of public health this year and the church seems to be scattered and divided, not knowing what to do. “...churches were prohibited from meeting in direct violation of the First Amendment while Black Lives Matter protests were permitted. In other words, freedom of peaceable assembly applied only to groups promoting approved messages.” - from the Epilogue, page 174.
Glenn Sunshine gives a well written overview of the history of Christian political thought. The author is very engaging and does a difficult task, taking a huge amount of detailed history and compiling it into a survey under 200 pages.
Outside of the influential thinkers he traces including Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Rutherford, and Locke, Sunshine covers unalienable rights, resistance, liberty, problematic Two Kingdom Theology and how Protestants responded to threats of Leviathan rising over other spheres in history.
My only minor critique would be wishing there was more direct quotes from these thinkers but Sunshine basically makes up for it by providing an extensive appendix for further reading of all the original sources he was pulling from. A much needed book in understanding the times we are in today.
Glenn Sunshine gives a well written overview of the history of Christian political thought. The author is very engaging and does a difficult task, taking a huge amount of detailed history and compiling it into a survey under 200 pages.
Outside of the influential thinkers he traces including Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Rutherford, and Locke, Sunshine covers unalienable rights, resistance, liberty, problematic Two Kingdom Theology and how Protestants responded to threats of Leviathan rising over other spheres in history.
My only minor critique would be wishing there was more direct quotes from these thinkers but Sunshine basically makes up for it by providing an extensive appendix for further reading of all the original sources he was pulling from. A much needed book in understanding the times we are in today.
August 3, 2021
I was expecting this book to the end of the conversation but found out it is only the beginning of it. And that is a good thing! Glenn Sunshine does a brilliant job addressing the history of government and how resistance to it has happened throughout the ages. In doing so he opens the door for one to think through the reality of Jesus as Lord of all things, including the realm of the governments, civil and family.
December 19, 2020
This was a good survey of Christian Political thought. I was pleased to see that Dr. Sunshine largely avoids oversimplifying the issues at stake, an all too common pitfall for Christian advocates of liberalism. Still, I think Dr. Sunshine overlooks a few key principles (e.g. the relationship between private property and the Universal Destination of Goods), and by treating Lockean liberalism as the only consistent version of Christian political thought; he ends up mischaracterizing earlier Christian thinkers.
For example, in his discussion of religious liberty and state churches, instead of showing how Luther and Calvin viewed state churches as a good and necessary consequence of the magistrate's duties and consistent with their view of Christian liberty; Dr. Sunshine just assumes that they were ignorant of the tension and moves on.
On the more positive side, I found his definition of "ordered liberty" one of the stronger points and one that's extremely helpful for our time:
"And yet, the laws of nature and nature's God also impose on us obligations to act for the good of our neighbors. Thus, we cannot take a radically individualistic view of our rights. Instead, the law of love suggests that we balance individual freedom with public order and concern for the common good... Exactly where to draw the lines between order and liberty is not always clear, and governments frequently get the lines wrong, allowing freedom where it is harmful and restricting liberty where it is not... Liberty thus may be an unalienable right, but it is not an absolute right."
This is a helpful antidote to the libertarian tendencies in fusionist conservativism which often veer towards license and an absolutist notion of liberty. Modern conservatives would likely be appalled to find out that their theological heroes used to support such things as sumptuary laws, public hospitals, and guild-based price and labor controls; none of which were seen as threats to liberty, but rather were seen to promote ordered liberty in those circumstances.
Overall, the book is to be commended for its ad fontes approach and encouraging modern Christians to begin thinking about politics at a deeper level than what we get from social media.
For example, in his discussion of religious liberty and state churches, instead of showing how Luther and Calvin viewed state churches as a good and necessary consequence of the magistrate's duties and consistent with their view of Christian liberty; Dr. Sunshine just assumes that they were ignorant of the tension and moves on.
On the more positive side, I found his definition of "ordered liberty" one of the stronger points and one that's extremely helpful for our time:
"And yet, the laws of nature and nature's God also impose on us obligations to act for the good of our neighbors. Thus, we cannot take a radically individualistic view of our rights. Instead, the law of love suggests that we balance individual freedom with public order and concern for the common good... Exactly where to draw the lines between order and liberty is not always clear, and governments frequently get the lines wrong, allowing freedom where it is harmful and restricting liberty where it is not... Liberty thus may be an unalienable right, but it is not an absolute right."
This is a helpful antidote to the libertarian tendencies in fusionist conservativism which often veer towards license and an absolutist notion of liberty. Modern conservatives would likely be appalled to find out that their theological heroes used to support such things as sumptuary laws, public hospitals, and guild-based price and labor controls; none of which were seen as threats to liberty, but rather were seen to promote ordered liberty in those circumstances.
Overall, the book is to be commended for its ad fontes approach and encouraging modern Christians to begin thinking about politics at a deeper level than what we get from social media.
November 8, 2021
I’ve enjoyed getting to know Glenn Sunshine on the Theology Pugcast podcast, with Chris Wiley and Tom Price. His insights into modern culture from medieval and Reformation history are consistently incisive and helpful.
In Slaying Leviathan, Sunshine wields his historical knowledge to help us understand the proper role of the state, in a Christian worldview.
Common knowledge has it that before the Enlightenment, Medieval Christendom was a theocratic, absolutist nightmare, right up through Calvin’s Geneva. It took the wars of religion in Europe in the 1600s to cure us of that, along with Christendom, and we’ve been happy, tolerant pluralists ever since. Conservative Christians who press for limited government do so against their history and against Romans 13.
Except that’s not how it is – or was - at all.
From monks arguing for property rights, to the Magna Carta restricting the king’s power, to England’s Glorious Revolution chasing out an absolutist monarch for the more reasonable William and Mary, Sunshine lays out the developing history of a Christian culture and theologians restraining its civil rulers from taking on too much power. But when the Christian faith wanes, the state waxes as a possible idol. Hobbes’ Leviathan, and our current culture’s values are two cases in point.
I cut my theological teeth on the Reformed teaching of RC Sproul. I’ll be forever grateful for coming across him. And he taught me that the classic Christian tradition says this regarding submitting to government: if they aren’t demanding you disobey God, or if they aren’t forbidding you to do what God requires, you have to do what they say. Sunshine presents a different historical view, with plenty of faithful Christian pastors and authors challenging the authority of the magistrate before that standard is clearly reached. (The American Revolution is a major example.) Are there any Scriptural examples of this, and does that matter?
Slaying Leviathan would have benefitted from some direct interaction with Sproul’s view, which is held by most in the church today. Still, Sunshine’s argument from history is well done and worth the read.
In Slaying Leviathan, Sunshine wields his historical knowledge to help us understand the proper role of the state, in a Christian worldview.
Common knowledge has it that before the Enlightenment, Medieval Christendom was a theocratic, absolutist nightmare, right up through Calvin’s Geneva. It took the wars of religion in Europe in the 1600s to cure us of that, along with Christendom, and we’ve been happy, tolerant pluralists ever since. Conservative Christians who press for limited government do so against their history and against Romans 13.
Except that’s not how it is – or was - at all.
From monks arguing for property rights, to the Magna Carta restricting the king’s power, to England’s Glorious Revolution chasing out an absolutist monarch for the more reasonable William and Mary, Sunshine lays out the developing history of a Christian culture and theologians restraining its civil rulers from taking on too much power. But when the Christian faith wanes, the state waxes as a possible idol. Hobbes’ Leviathan, and our current culture’s values are two cases in point.
I cut my theological teeth on the Reformed teaching of RC Sproul. I’ll be forever grateful for coming across him. And he taught me that the classic Christian tradition says this regarding submitting to government: if they aren’t demanding you disobey God, or if they aren’t forbidding you to do what God requires, you have to do what they say. Sunshine presents a different historical view, with plenty of faithful Christian pastors and authors challenging the authority of the magistrate before that standard is clearly reached. (The American Revolution is a major example.) Are there any Scriptural examples of this, and does that matter?
Slaying Leviathan would have benefitted from some direct interaction with Sproul’s view, which is held by most in the church today. Still, Sunshine’s argument from history is well done and worth the read.
May 29, 2021
Interesting food for thought and introduction into the practices of believers and basic reasoning on this subject. I would have liked to seen more detail on how these folks developed their traditions from Scripture. There’s no question that we have certain unalienable rights given to us by God. The greater question is to what extent Christians should seek to fight for those rights for themselves, particularly when our Savior forfeited them to reconcile us to God.
March 18, 2021
Most Christians I meet are governmental absolutists in their political convictions and don't even know it. This book is very good and the historical context set here is necessary for Christians to make judicial decisions about how they are going to conceptualize the Church-State relationship moving forward.
It's unfortunate that the reputation Canon Press has garnered for having bare-knuckled brawlers for authors will render this little book beyond consideration for some (though, granted, that reputation is warranted. I dare say the folks in Moscow, ID would wear the description like a badge of honor, God bless them). They'll read the title and subtitle, see the publisher, and conclude that this is merely fuel for the fire of ungracious hot-heads who are looking for any excuse to justify their absence of the fruit of the Spirit. Folks that leach off of others, building platforms by dunking on other people for their platform-building, etc. etc. Of course, it's not hard to find real life examples of these types, and more than a few of them will quickly reveal great affection for Canon Press. But I'm going to be so bold as to say that few of those examples will cite *this* book as their favorite Canon Press book.
Why? Because it's *too boring.* It doesn't readily present itself to the fire-breathing types. We can forgive them for assuming it would, given the title and publisher. But what readers will find in this book is a cool-headed, flat-footed, learned historical treatment. Virtually none of the characteristically Canon Press zingers--those sharp rhetorical quotes with which to pummel liberals. Sunshine practices enough restraint on editorializing that Christians from a wide spectrum of political impulses can read the book without feeling ostracized. He's not shy about what he thinks, but he's careful to distinguish his recommendations from the historical survey he develops in each chapter, to the end that any Christian can read it and not feel like the target of a polemical attack.
It's unfortunate that the reputation Canon Press has garnered for having bare-knuckled brawlers for authors will render this little book beyond consideration for some (though, granted, that reputation is warranted. I dare say the folks in Moscow, ID would wear the description like a badge of honor, God bless them). They'll read the title and subtitle, see the publisher, and conclude that this is merely fuel for the fire of ungracious hot-heads who are looking for any excuse to justify their absence of the fruit of the Spirit. Folks that leach off of others, building platforms by dunking on other people for their platform-building, etc. etc. Of course, it's not hard to find real life examples of these types, and more than a few of them will quickly reveal great affection for Canon Press. But I'm going to be so bold as to say that few of those examples will cite *this* book as their favorite Canon Press book.
Why? Because it's *too boring.* It doesn't readily present itself to the fire-breathing types. We can forgive them for assuming it would, given the title and publisher. But what readers will find in this book is a cool-headed, flat-footed, learned historical treatment. Virtually none of the characteristically Canon Press zingers--those sharp rhetorical quotes with which to pummel liberals. Sunshine practices enough restraint on editorializing that Christians from a wide spectrum of political impulses can read the book without feeling ostracized. He's not shy about what he thinks, but he's careful to distinguish his recommendations from the historical survey he develops in each chapter, to the end that any Christian can read it and not feel like the target of a polemical attack.
January 18, 2022
I read this book for the 2022 Gospel eBooks reading challenge. It was for the themed challenge, where I had to read "a book about politics or the role of government."
This book is a historical treatise that traces the development of the Christian view regarding the sphere of government, and how believers resisted to over-extensions of their authority. The time period covered starts with the early church and finishes at the American revolution.
A focus of the book is Protestant resistance theory which attempts to answer such questions as: "When does a legitimate government lose its legitimacy? When does a lawful king become an unlawful tyrant? And how are we to respond when that happens?" Sunshine does not make this concept appear monochrome, but notes when there were differing standards such as can be found in Britain's "Glorious Revolution" vs. America's revolution.
The weakness of this book, as with all historical books, is it approaches one angle only. Thus for a biblical treatise one would have to read another book. But having said that, it does it's job well in providing an excellent historical overview on the topic at hand. It really helped me crystalize some concepts such as the necessity of unalienable rights and the difference between liberty and license (and how liberty must be within the bounds of divine and natural law).
This book was an excellent work of history, and a fine introduction to Protestant resistance theory. But it's also not enough. Another work is needed to complement this.
This book is a historical treatise that traces the development of the Christian view regarding the sphere of government, and how believers resisted to over-extensions of their authority. The time period covered starts with the early church and finishes at the American revolution.
A focus of the book is Protestant resistance theory which attempts to answer such questions as: "When does a legitimate government lose its legitimacy? When does a lawful king become an unlawful tyrant? And how are we to respond when that happens?" Sunshine does not make this concept appear monochrome, but notes when there were differing standards such as can be found in Britain's "Glorious Revolution" vs. America's revolution.
The weakness of this book, as with all historical books, is it approaches one angle only. Thus for a biblical treatise one would have to read another book. But having said that, it does it's job well in providing an excellent historical overview on the topic at hand. It really helped me crystalize some concepts such as the necessity of unalienable rights and the difference between liberty and license (and how liberty must be within the bounds of divine and natural law).
This book was an excellent work of history, and a fine introduction to Protestant resistance theory. But it's also not enough. Another work is needed to complement this.
November 18, 2024
A thoughtful and erudite, albeit brief, overview of Christian political thought from Constantine and Augustine through the Reformation and the American Founding Fathers. Very worthwhile for anyone desiring or needing such an introduction. I appreciated how the footnotes were read along with the main text of the audiobook, although I would deduct a star for the narrator—while his reading was clear, his pronunciation of many proper names was quite off.
January 29, 2025
“A republic only stands if it consists of virtuous people who do not seek from government what it should not give, and virtuous political leaders who subordinate their own interests to the good of the commonwealth.”
A good, easy-to-read overview of the topic.
A good, easy-to-read overview of the topic.
February 26, 2021
A great overview of historical instances of Christian resistance to governmental tyranny and their implications and applications to today's society.
August 13, 2021
An extremely helpful primer, highly recommend
October 10, 2023
Solid work.
April 8, 2025
“Trying to change reality to fit our desires is a fool's errand, dooming its victims to lives of brokenness and disorder.”
Read along with Scholé Sister's Stable and Steadfast mentorship. Excellent book on Christian political thought. I’ve enjoyed discussing it with my girls. I don't mind preaching to the choir, and I'm certainly in the choir for this book. I appreciate that the narrative held my attention even when I got a tad bogged down in the philosophical details. I would like to explore these ideas more, but this was a great introduction.
Read along with Scholé Sister's Stable and Steadfast mentorship. Excellent book on Christian political thought. I’ve enjoyed discussing it with my girls. I don't mind preaching to the choir, and I'm certainly in the choir for this book. I appreciate that the narrative held my attention even when I got a tad bogged down in the philosophical details. I would like to explore these ideas more, but this was a great introduction.
May 29, 2025
Terrific. Now I feel like a doofus for going to so much effort to figure all this out on my own over the last two years. I should have just read this book. I guess it's the journey, not the destination, that shapes you though, right? Great overview for anyone interested in the history of Christian political thought, and even if you already know this stuff it was very helpful for making new connections and giving me a new appreciation for the American founding in context.
May 30, 2022
This was a helpful overview. A book that attempts to cover a vast amount of history in a short work can run the risk of misrepresentation and simplicity. I think, overall, this book avoids that.
July 22, 2024
Aristotle’s 3 forms of government -
In proper form:
1. Monarchy
2. Aristocracy
3. Republic
In degenerate form (self-interest):
1. Tyranny
2. Oligarchy
3. Democracy
“This last seems odd to us today, since we are conditioned to think of democracy as a good thing. But Aristotle, who had lived through Athenian democracy, knew its pitfalls. He recognized what we today describe as mob psychology, that people in crowds act more out of passion than reason. The danger is that a demagogue (literally a "mob leader") would stir the passions of the crowd so that they acted out of emotion, not reason. Since reason is essential for eudaimonia [the full development of all our natural abilities pursued through reason commonly translated as “happiness”] democracy is a degenerate form of government.” ~Glenn S. Sunshine, Slaying Leviathan
—
Considering one democratically nominated candidate for presidency was effectively removed by an oligarchy of donors yesterday, and the other presidential candidate - labeled as the biggest threat to democracy by many - had an attempt on his life the week prior… I’m thinking Aristotle’s assessment of the inherent dangers of democracy are deadly accurate.
So how do we come back from a political landscape where ideas of a republic are all but forgotten and political degeneracy is the status quo?
—
Glenn Sunshine’s book walks us back through the Western development of ideas that lead to constitutional republics, religious liberty, and church/state relationships from the ancient Roman Empire through modern times.
“Using words and reasoning from Berber Christian Lanctatius’s Divine Institutes, [Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan, 312 AD] established religious liberty in Rome, effectively making Christianity legal and ending religious persecution… on the grounds that worship of God was only acceptable if it was offered freely.”
(Although many blame Constantine for undermining the distinction of church and state by making Christianity the official state religion of Rome, that did not happen until Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD.)
“Saint Augustine’s (354-430 AD) emphasis on limited government and the need for checks and balances [in his book “The City of God”] influenced the Magna Carta, which sought to limit royal power and ensure liberties/rights of different groups in England.
“Shortly thereafter, the recovery of Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ proved to be an important counterbalance to Augustinian pessimism, providing a theoretical underpinning for the structure of medieval government…”
which G. Sunshine goes on to illustrate how political theory was further developed by church reformers such as Martin Luther, modified by Jean Calvin in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (where he tempered Christian principles with Aristotelian logic) and was further refined by Puritans in the New World. And along with influences of notable figures such as Hobbes and Locke (who were outside the pale of orthodox evangelicalism, as reflected in their political theory) the ideas of limited government were foundational in our Founding Fathers development of a republic.
In proper form:
1. Monarchy
2. Aristocracy
3. Republic
In degenerate form (self-interest):
1. Tyranny
2. Oligarchy
3. Democracy
“This last seems odd to us today, since we are conditioned to think of democracy as a good thing. But Aristotle, who had lived through Athenian democracy, knew its pitfalls. He recognized what we today describe as mob psychology, that people in crowds act more out of passion than reason. The danger is that a demagogue (literally a "mob leader") would stir the passions of the crowd so that they acted out of emotion, not reason. Since reason is essential for eudaimonia [the full development of all our natural abilities pursued through reason commonly translated as “happiness”] democracy is a degenerate form of government.” ~Glenn S. Sunshine, Slaying Leviathan
—
Considering one democratically nominated candidate for presidency was effectively removed by an oligarchy of donors yesterday, and the other presidential candidate - labeled as the biggest threat to democracy by many - had an attempt on his life the week prior… I’m thinking Aristotle’s assessment of the inherent dangers of democracy are deadly accurate.
So how do we come back from a political landscape where ideas of a republic are all but forgotten and political degeneracy is the status quo?
—
Glenn Sunshine’s book walks us back through the Western development of ideas that lead to constitutional republics, religious liberty, and church/state relationships from the ancient Roman Empire through modern times.
“Using words and reasoning from Berber Christian Lanctatius’s Divine Institutes, [Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan, 312 AD] established religious liberty in Rome, effectively making Christianity legal and ending religious persecution… on the grounds that worship of God was only acceptable if it was offered freely.”
(Although many blame Constantine for undermining the distinction of church and state by making Christianity the official state religion of Rome, that did not happen until Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD.)
“Saint Augustine’s (354-430 AD) emphasis on limited government and the need for checks and balances [in his book “The City of God”] influenced the Magna Carta, which sought to limit royal power and ensure liberties/rights of different groups in England.
“Shortly thereafter, the recovery of Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ proved to be an important counterbalance to Augustinian pessimism, providing a theoretical underpinning for the structure of medieval government…”
which G. Sunshine goes on to illustrate how political theory was further developed by church reformers such as Martin Luther, modified by Jean Calvin in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (where he tempered Christian principles with Aristotelian logic) and was further refined by Puritans in the New World. And along with influences of notable figures such as Hobbes and Locke (who were outside the pale of orthodox evangelicalism, as reflected in their political theory) the ideas of limited government were foundational in our Founding Fathers development of a republic.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 2, 2021
(Typed on a phone late at night...please excuse any typos!) I really enjoyed this book. It provides a quick introduction to the history of Protestant resistance theory. I loved the idea of sphere sovereignty--that different spheres (government, education, labor, etc.) exist as sovereign realms. When a sphere's efficiency is somehow compromised, it's tempting for a separate sphere--usually government--to step up to replace that defunct sphere. So education fails, government provide education. Two problems here are that government isn't well equipped for assuming the added role, and that as it's sphere sovereignty increases, you find a petty form of tyrany with a limitless trajectory--what starts as nothing more than a nose eventually becomes a whole camel in your tent.
I was struck by what seems to be an odd relationship--Hobbes' vision of a sovereign ruler is for all practical purposes the same as an absolute monarch with divine rights. The king hypothetically faces God for judgment one day--an unimaginable circumstance in Hobbes' mechanical philosophy--but whether by God or by social contract, they both have carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Perhaps the biggest surprise was how modern everything felt. Hobbes just sounds like anyone I might talk with today, and that makes sense, but even the medieval thinkers and the Scottish Covenanters struck me as remarkably accessible.
All in all, this was a great thought provoking intro to a history I am convinced most of my peers are ignorant of. I don't say that arrogantly or anything--I just don't think many of my fellow 21st century American evangelical friends are aware of this. They typically oversimplify obedience to governing officials without taking into account our rich philosophical and theological heritage, the demonstrable governmental trends in world history, or the fact that our modern obedience to governing officials necessarily looks different from 1st-3rd century Christianity because we are citizens of a democratic republic.
Good stuff.
I was struck by what seems to be an odd relationship--Hobbes' vision of a sovereign ruler is for all practical purposes the same as an absolute monarch with divine rights. The king hypothetically faces God for judgment one day--an unimaginable circumstance in Hobbes' mechanical philosophy--but whether by God or by social contract, they both have carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Perhaps the biggest surprise was how modern everything felt. Hobbes just sounds like anyone I might talk with today, and that makes sense, but even the medieval thinkers and the Scottish Covenanters struck me as remarkably accessible.
All in all, this was a great thought provoking intro to a history I am convinced most of my peers are ignorant of. I don't say that arrogantly or anything--I just don't think many of my fellow 21st century American evangelical friends are aware of this. They typically oversimplify obedience to governing officials without taking into account our rich philosophical and theological heritage, the demonstrable governmental trends in world history, or the fact that our modern obedience to governing officials necessarily looks different from 1st-3rd century Christianity because we are citizens of a democratic republic.
Good stuff.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews