Joseph Boot’s “The Mission of God” is an expansive, manifesto for the people of God to realize the Puritan vision for the advancement of the kingdom of God. Boot follows a neglected, but well-worn path, in attempting to re-cast a Christian vision for making disciples of all nations.
Boot’s central idea, is that the evangelical church has neglected biblical law, impoverishing the “gospel and the kingdom reign of God.” He argues that in neglecting the law of God, evangelicals instead “look to secular social and political theories, drawn from non-Christian philosophical ideas, to help define and accomplish the work of the kingdom of God rather than resting in and building upon the clear instruction of God’s word.” P. 36
This is worked out in manifold ways, which Boot goes to great lengths to demonstrate and rebut. He argues “for the necessity of a recovery of applied biblical faith to every area of life—a vision of human life and affairs that was…best exemplified so far in our history by the Puritans, prominent heirs of the Reformation.” P. 48 Boot argues that in the Puritans, we find “submission to God…in every…sphere of life. Their principle of interpretation was the hermeneutic of surrender, not suspicion, and God’s word was for them the final word in all things..” p. 63
Boot works all of this out as he explores the Puritan vision for the kingdom of God, including eschatology, missions, history, civics, justice, culture, education, family, apologetics, evangelism, and the church. If this sounds comprehensive and grand—it is. The book is long, though never tedious, and passionate without becoming didactic.
The bibliography is twenty-two pages long, so it is clear that Boot has read widely and is integrating a great many thinkers and ideas together. It becomes clear rather quickly, however, that R.J. Rushdoony features prominently in Boot’s argumentation. Two pages of the bibliography are Rushdoony works—a remarkably bold decision with Rushdoony never really having come into favor in evangelical circles. But Boot is not ashamed to lean upon him—even devoting an appendix to defending his use of Rushdoony.
As much as he quotes the controversial theonomist, Boot is integrating Rushdoony’s ideas, not uncritically adopting them. Boot is applying the Puritan vision, which he sees in Rushdoony, who he calls a modern-day Puritan, not simply re-packaging theonomy.
Those familiar with Rushdoony will recognize many of his ideas—not whether, but which; the inescapability of law being religious; the one and the many; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon; etc.
Boot recognizes the foe has created an alternate, statist vision for the world, and it is only Christianity armed with the whole counsel of God that can triumph over it. He writes, “any missiological vision which does not have in view the undermining of the pretensions of statism is deficient at best and working within a humanistic and statist paradigm at worst.” P. 147
In a prescient passage, he anticipates the statist response to a crisis, such as was accomplished through the statist responses to COVID-19. He writes, “Utopian power and control require the political use of coercion with the state, functioning as ‘man enlarged,’ being the sole source of law and sovereign authority. It further requires the manipulation of nature in terms of organizational ‘science’ to eliminate uncertainty and demonstrate this omni-competence. Such a vision if obviously dystopian since it requires totalitarianism.” He concludes, “Total power is then an essential requirement to bring about the new utopia which mankind is said to both need and be destined for. Even if most people don’t understand this destiny, the new philosopher kings, the elite social planners believe they understand, and more importantly, know what is best for the rest of us.” 169
Without the law of God as the standard, man creates a hell on earth to mete out human justice, since “God’s covenantal judgments in history are denied…man needs to create for himself a purely world-bound and temporal court for absolute judgment, and consign men to an immanent hell for disobedience.” P. 179
Christians typically prefer to lean upon natural law, in an effort to appeal to a more ‘neutral’ or “non-religious paradigm…for engagement with the ‘secular’ sphere.” But, as Boot observes, natural law falls apart “as soon as the religious consensus is lost, people’s vision of what ‘natural law’ is becomes totally disparate or is abandoned altogether.” P. 265 In arguing against natural law, he is, of course, following Rushdoony, who holds that “lasting personal, social and political liberty [is] not possible apart from orthodox Christianity and the upholding of God’s law.” P. 268
Lest he let his readers think that this vision is a novel, or perhaps even theocratic one, Boot shows how this was in fact the foundation for western jurisprudence—particularly in the English Common Law tradition—the foundation for the justice systems in Canada and the United States, not to mention others. It wasn’t even that long ago that laws against sexual deviancy, abortion, divorce, and more were all legislated and enforced!
Having abandoned biblical law, or at least a more faithful version of it than what remains today, we instead “coddle the criminal…and thereby show little care for the victim.” P. 344 But according to “biblical penology”, “the end in view” is “a vision of social peace, and hope for a godly culture that is surrendered to the righteousness and justice of a covenant-keeping God, whose great love is made manifest by the restitution effected by Christ’s redemptive work, and his grace expressed socially in a system of restorative justice where human flourishing within self-giving community can take place.” P. 354 That isn’t quite the theocratic tyranny that critics of theonomy would have you fear.
Naturally, Boot must answer the “two kingdom” theorists, who would have Christians stay out of the culture wars and focus on preaching the gospel. He again points out that the two kingdoms view is only tenable within the confines of a culture “already …under the influence of the gospel.” As the shared presuppositions begin to erode, so too does the culture. P. 382
Toward the end of the book, Boot asks the important question, “What happened? Where did the vital vision of… Puritan theologians for the church’s mission disappear to and why?” His first answer is the Enlightenment banished religion to the private sphere, “leaving the public sphere to reason.” He argues that some Christians have even followed this path. Others have followed the path of “pietism”—with their goal of “simply advancing [their] personal spiritual growth.” This group “divorces faith and reason, seeking to locate the faith essentially in human feelings and experience alone.” P. 526 But the “most popular response amongst Protestants has been the radical privatization of the faith”—what has become “’Christian’ political pluralism.” P. 527
But the answer, according to Boot, “is in fact a simple return to the whole council [sic] of God in Scripture and a revival of a Puritan theology of mission.” P. 531 For us, this means a return to the law of God and its application to the whole of life. This grand vision is a return to our roots—the roots that founded Christendom, and which in abandoning, has led to the near total ruin the west is currently undergoing. Whoever picks up the mantle of God’s authoritative law-word, will begin to build a new Christendom—hopefully built on a more solid foundation than the synergistic one built the first time. But build it they will, with the Word of God as the standard by which all things are measured.
This is one of the most important books written in the twenty-first century, as it advances the work of important twentieth-century thinkers, but more importantly, the Puritans of old, who sought to build God’s kingdom through his appointed means. May we, in this generation, join them!