What do you think?
Rate this book
Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World
For more than a millennium, beginning in the early Middle Ages, most Western Christians lived in societies that sought to be comprehensively Christian--ecclesiastically, economically, legally, and politically. That is to say, most Western Christians lived in Christendom. But in a gradual process beginning a few hundred years ago, Christendom weakened and finally crumbled. Today, most Christians in the world live in pluralistic political communities. And Christians themselves have very different opinions about what to make of the demise of Christendom and how to understand their status and responsibilities in a post-Christendom world. Politics After Christendom argues that Scripture leaves Christians well-equipped for living in a world such as this. Scripture gives no indication that Christians should strive to establish some version of Christendom. Instead, it prepares them to live in societies that are indifferent or hostile to Christianity, societies in which believers must live faithful lives as sojourners and exiles. Politics After Christendom explains what Scripture teaches about political community and about Christians' responsibilities within their own communities. As it pursues this task, Politics After Christendom makes use of several important theological ideas that Christian thinkers have developed over the centuries. These ideas include Augustine's Two-Cities concept, the Reformation Two-Kingdoms category, natural law, and a theology of the biblical covenants. Politics After Christendom brings these ideas together in a distinctive way to present a model for Christian political engagement. In doing so, it interacts with many important thinkers, including older theologians (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin), recent secular political theorists (e.g., Rawls, Hayek, and Dworkin), contemporary political-theologians (e.g., Hauerwas, O'Donovan, and Wolterstorff), and contemporary Christian cultural commentators (e.g., MacIntyre, Hunter, and Dreher). Part 1 presents a political theology through a careful study of the biblical story, giving special attention to the covenants God has established with his creation and how these covenants inform a proper view of political community. Part 1 argues that civil governments are legitimate but penultimate, and common but not neutral. It concludes that Christians should understand themselves as sojourners and exiles in their political communities. They ought to pursue justice, peace, and excellence in these communities, but remember that these communities are temporary and thus not confuse them with the everlasting kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians' ultimate citizenship is in this new-creation kingdom. Part 2 reflects on how the political theology developed in Part 1 provides Christians with a framework for thinking about perennial issues of political and legal theory. Part 2 does not set out a detailed public policy or promote a particular political ideology. Rather, it suggests how Christians might think about important social issues in a wise and theologically sound way, so that they might be better equipped to respond well to the specific controversies they face today. These issues include race, religious liberty, family, economics, justice, rights, authority, and civil resistance. After considering these matters, Part 2 concludes by reflecting on the classical liberal and conservative traditions, as well as recent challenges to them by nationalist and progressivist movements.
400 pages, Paperback
Published April 21, 2020
46 people are currently reading
320 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 - 28 of 28 reviews
June 28, 2022
Very readable. VanDrunen is a straightforward communicator, and I found his reasoning and exegesis easy to follow and convincing. The book left me feeling a little overwhelmed about the state of my own country and how far off the vision for an ideal government it is, but I appreciated his vision for the ideal functioning and forms of government. Gaining knowledge of that ideal, while perhaps somewhat disheartening, is not wasted, and this book gave me a Biblical framework for understanding government.
May 20, 2020
Politics after Christendom is divided into two parts. In Part 1 Dr. VanDrunen lays the foundation by demonstrating how the Noahic Covenant provides the framework for developing a Christian political theology. In Part 2 he builds upon the foundation of the Noahic Coveant, drawing implications for legal and political theory. VanDrunen's reasoning is careful, his method is transparent, and his tone is at all times winsome.
Having been trained in law prior to the ministry, I found the book thoroughly intriguing. Dr. VanDrunen has been a major influence on my own legal and politcal theory, and this book has further refined my thinking. I found his chapter on Customs and Laws very interesting, especially in how he argues for law as polycentric, and thus a customary legal order, as opposed to being top-down and monocentric. It makes me want to unearth some of my old notebooks from law school.
This book is a treasure. I would recommend it to anyone who has first read his basic book on Two Kingdoms, and who yearn to know more of what 2K looks like in concrete terms.
Having been trained in law prior to the ministry, I found the book thoroughly intriguing. Dr. VanDrunen has been a major influence on my own legal and politcal theory, and this book has further refined my thinking. I found his chapter on Customs and Laws very interesting, especially in how he argues for law as polycentric, and thus a customary legal order, as opposed to being top-down and monocentric. It makes me want to unearth some of my old notebooks from law school.
This book is a treasure. I would recommend it to anyone who has first read his basic book on Two Kingdoms, and who yearn to know more of what 2K looks like in concrete terms.
November 4, 2020
Timely and helpful. I highly recommend.
November 5, 2020
Who knew a Presbyterian could get so many things right at once?
January 13, 2021
Excellent book. VanDrunen offers a solid overarching theological framework of how a Christian should understand political involvement that, at least in my mind, is compelling. If you're a Christian who's into politics, you should definitely read this. Undoubtedly the best thing I've read in ages!
July 7, 2020
I've followed David VanDrunen's works on the Noahic covenant and public life for some time, and I found this to be his sharpest articulation of it yet. What sets this apart from his others and is its greatest strength is how he applies his ideas to political ethics. My only qualm is that though he argues quite well that "the Noahic covenant offers a framework for thinking about perennial legal and political issues without providing a detailed public policy or promoting a specific party agenda" (p. 357), he does seem to wed it a little too closely to a libertarian position. Nonetheless, his frameworks are widely applicable to evaluating and encouraging a robust public life.
March 11, 2022
I thought the beginning and end of this one were good. However, the middle kind of lost me. It was highly academic and I felt like the author covered every topic but politics throughout most of the book. Also, he based his entire argument on the Noahic covenant found in Genesis. I feel like a lot of things have happened since then (namely Jesus), that may need to update his points of reference. Overall, not bad, but I don't recommend this unless you are looking to do a deep dive and willing to look up a lot of words.
April 30, 2021
VanDrunen's political theology is incredible.
June 7, 2024
Naohic cov is a good foundation, but you can't do all that the book tried from ONLY the Noahic cov. The last chapter should have been omitted as well.
December 17, 2020
VanDrunen gives a lucid presentation of the biblical teaching concerning Christian interaction with non-Christian government authorities. He argues form the perspective of what is called the “Reformed Two-Kingdom” approach (R2K), but the value of his essential theological teachings is not limited to the Reformed tradition. At crucial places, he provides sound exegetical reasoning from both the Old and New Testaments. His basic point is that the Kingdom of God is not established through political powers. Apart from the Old Testament theocracy, the people of God in the Bible recognized God’s sovereignty over world powers, while not thinking of those powers as His religious representatives on earth. Rooting his thinking in the Noahic Covenant, VanDrunen argues that the job of political powers is to establish and enforce basic morality and justice, while allowing for religious freedom. He notes that, while God’s oracle judgments on Israel centered around idolatry, His oracle judgments on the nations (Assyria, Babylon, Tyre, etc.) centered on injustice and the exploitation of other human beings.
VanDrunen walks a healthy and safe line between liberation theologians who define the Christian mission in terms of political activism, and others, like John Howard Yoder, who believe that political involvement has no place in the Christian life. I think the essential views articulated in this book are correct, and that it is a valuable resource. Rather than putting these arguments in the context of two kingdoms, I prefer to understand them as different aspects of the broader concept of “Kingdom of God” as it is mediated through different authorities in different contexts. To put this another way, rather than saying there are two different kingdoms (a la Augustine), I prefer to say, “this is how the Kingdom of God is mediated in this context.” But I believe the difference here is primarily semantic.
While highly recommending this book, I offer the following critiques.
First, VanDrunen takes credit for articulating God’s common rule in terms of biblical covenants and centering it primarily in the Noahic Covenant. He says “The present book is unique in trying to explain all these ideas in the context of biblical covenants” (p. 21). He also strongly implies that focusing on the Noahic Covenant as the biblical basis for common government is his unique contribution. Unfortunately, Van Drunen has apparently never read J. Dwight Pentecost, who articulated these ideas in print in 1995 (Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God’s Kingdom Program and Covenant Promises throughout History, see esp., pp 46-50) and had been teaching these concepts in his classes for decades before that. We might also add that this basic premise was taught by C. I. Scofield and has been a core teaching of dispensational theology for over a century. This is not to say that Van Drunen does not develop these concepts more fully than Pentecost did, he certainly does. But as a dispensationalist, I can’t help but be irked by the fact that Van Drunen interacts with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and liberal protestants, but ignores dispensationalism while taking credit for its ideas. C’est la vie.
Second, Van Drunen has no section that interacts with Christian Reconstructionism. Considering that His ideas would seem to be the refutation to this movement, and that the movement is a Reformed one, I would expect him to have at least one section that interacts with it. The absence of such a section seemed strange and left me disappointed.
Finally, I think Van Drunen extrapolates far more specific points than the biblical text merits. When he discusses the implications of the biblical teachings, I think he goes into much more detail than the biblical text, or the theological principles, can possibly justify.
In the grand scheme of things, these critiques are minor, and the contribution of the book is vast. In a world where thinking Christians are struggling to understand the proper interface of faith and political involvement, Dr. Van Drunen provides exegetical and theological clarity.
VanDrunen walks a healthy and safe line between liberation theologians who define the Christian mission in terms of political activism, and others, like John Howard Yoder, who believe that political involvement has no place in the Christian life. I think the essential views articulated in this book are correct, and that it is a valuable resource. Rather than putting these arguments in the context of two kingdoms, I prefer to understand them as different aspects of the broader concept of “Kingdom of God” as it is mediated through different authorities in different contexts. To put this another way, rather than saying there are two different kingdoms (a la Augustine), I prefer to say, “this is how the Kingdom of God is mediated in this context.” But I believe the difference here is primarily semantic.
While highly recommending this book, I offer the following critiques.
First, VanDrunen takes credit for articulating God’s common rule in terms of biblical covenants and centering it primarily in the Noahic Covenant. He says “The present book is unique in trying to explain all these ideas in the context of biblical covenants” (p. 21). He also strongly implies that focusing on the Noahic Covenant as the biblical basis for common government is his unique contribution. Unfortunately, Van Drunen has apparently never read J. Dwight Pentecost, who articulated these ideas in print in 1995 (Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God’s Kingdom Program and Covenant Promises throughout History, see esp., pp 46-50) and had been teaching these concepts in his classes for decades before that. We might also add that this basic premise was taught by C. I. Scofield and has been a core teaching of dispensational theology for over a century. This is not to say that Van Drunen does not develop these concepts more fully than Pentecost did, he certainly does. But as a dispensationalist, I can’t help but be irked by the fact that Van Drunen interacts with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and liberal protestants, but ignores dispensationalism while taking credit for its ideas. C’est la vie.
Second, Van Drunen has no section that interacts with Christian Reconstructionism. Considering that His ideas would seem to be the refutation to this movement, and that the movement is a Reformed one, I would expect him to have at least one section that interacts with it. The absence of such a section seemed strange and left me disappointed.
Finally, I think Van Drunen extrapolates far more specific points than the biblical text merits. When he discusses the implications of the biblical teachings, I think he goes into much more detail than the biblical text, or the theological principles, can possibly justify.
In the grand scheme of things, these critiques are minor, and the contribution of the book is vast. In a world where thinking Christians are struggling to understand the proper interface of faith and political involvement, Dr. Van Drunen provides exegetical and theological clarity.
February 3, 2025
Learned plenty of useful information in this book. I particularly appreciated his discussion on law being the customary legal order as distinct from the written code. The customary legal order is what members of a community regard as legally binding such that those who violate it deserve sanction. In circumstances where the customary legal order differs from a written statute the CLO is what the citizen is obligated to obey.
The most obvious example of this is driving speeds and speed limits, the CLO is to remain within the flow of traffic, not cause hazards by driving either much faster or much slower than the norm. In some cases this may be faster than the posted limit, while in others (e.g. a snowstorm) it would be lower. Law is what is understood and enforced by the community.
Law can derive from multiple sources, written statute, norms & customs, common law. This view is called polycentrism, as opposed to legal realism.
I am as yet not convinced by his overall thesis though. His attempt to ground all governmental authority in the noahic covenant in particular is interesting, but many of the inferences he makes from it seem to be a stretch, most clearly his basic argument for pluralism that since the noahic covenant is for all mankind, nations cannot exclude people from themselves. He looks at Scripture and happens to find that it actually supports the exact political system we have today, not that which the church understood it as supporting for the last 2000 years. That kind of a break from precedent needs more support than I think he was able to find in the noahic covenant.
Also, the fact that the noahic covenant is a restatement of the original covenant God made with Adam (which was pre-fall) deserves more attention for the implications it has. It seems to me that could be used to argue the government is not as much a temporary result of the fall as he argues.
The most obvious example of this is driving speeds and speed limits, the CLO is to remain within the flow of traffic, not cause hazards by driving either much faster or much slower than the norm. In some cases this may be faster than the posted limit, while in others (e.g. a snowstorm) it would be lower. Law is what is understood and enforced by the community.
Law can derive from multiple sources, written statute, norms & customs, common law. This view is called polycentrism, as opposed to legal realism.
I am as yet not convinced by his overall thesis though. His attempt to ground all governmental authority in the noahic covenant in particular is interesting, but many of the inferences he makes from it seem to be a stretch, most clearly his basic argument for pluralism that since the noahic covenant is for all mankind, nations cannot exclude people from themselves. He looks at Scripture and happens to find that it actually supports the exact political system we have today, not that which the church understood it as supporting for the last 2000 years. That kind of a break from precedent needs more support than I think he was able to find in the noahic covenant.
Also, the fact that the noahic covenant is a restatement of the original covenant God made with Adam (which was pre-fall) deserves more attention for the implications it has. It seems to me that could be used to argue the government is not as much a temporary result of the fall as he argues.
September 16, 2020
VanDrunen has one simple idea that structures and fills the entire book: the best places to look in order to defend and describe the legitimate function of political government from a biblical perspective are Genesis 9 and Romans 13. He defends this thesis well against both those who would prefer to start with the Mosaic law (such as reconstructionists) and those who insist on starting with the Sermon on the Mount (such as pacifists), and he covers a huge breadth of topics ranging from the theoretical concerns of jurisprudence to the practical concerns of Christian living. If you're wondering what exactly the "second kingdom" is (to quote a question I once heard someone ask), you won't be wondering after reading this book.
An interesting point of reflection is where exactly we go in a liberal democracy now that we have a proliferation of books like these. It strikes me as being the case that a Christian who raves about the "(Judeo-)Christian foundation" of Western civilization, a Noahic 2Ker like VanDrunen, and an atheistic Rawlsian might all pay lip service in one form or another to the tenets of "liberalism" (broadly concceived), yet they would have very different views of what a liberal society looks like as soon as they entered a ballot box. VanDrunen's point that we should be cautious of political positions which involve forcing a notion of "the good" on a society is well taken as far as it goes, but what are we to do when liberals disagree amongst themselves, not just in theory but in practice? It seems that even in liberal democracies, conflicts about notions of the good do end up being taken into the ballot box, often with disastrous results. Even though this is not a part of VanDrunen's thesis, I will say that personally this is a book that has made me want to rethink democracy all the more.
An interesting point of reflection is where exactly we go in a liberal democracy now that we have a proliferation of books like these. It strikes me as being the case that a Christian who raves about the "(Judeo-)Christian foundation" of Western civilization, a Noahic 2Ker like VanDrunen, and an atheistic Rawlsian might all pay lip service in one form or another to the tenets of "liberalism" (broadly concceived), yet they would have very different views of what a liberal society looks like as soon as they entered a ballot box. VanDrunen's point that we should be cautious of political positions which involve forcing a notion of "the good" on a society is well taken as far as it goes, but what are we to do when liberals disagree amongst themselves, not just in theory but in practice? It seems that even in liberal democracies, conflicts about notions of the good do end up being taken into the ballot box, often with disastrous results. Even though this is not a part of VanDrunen's thesis, I will say that personally this is a book that has made me want to rethink democracy all the more.
June 3, 2021
Very good. As part of my ongoing study of church-state relations this book proved to be very helpful in establishing a clear distinction between the two realms or spheres. Because the state is founded upon the Noahic covenant (which is universal, time-bound, and preservative rather than redemptive) it should remain distinct and separate from the church which is founded on the New covenant (which is particular, eternal, and redemptive).
Here's a good quote that pertains to the matter of church-state distinctiveness: "...according to the New Testament, how the church is to worship, teach, and be governed and disciplined is under the church’s own jurisdiction, not that of the state. Bodies of qualified elders appointed by the church bear authority over such matters. To put it in terms familiar to this volume, Christian worship, doctrine, and discipline are affairs of the new covenant, not of the Noahic covenant. Christians therefore ought to resist state encroachment upon these affairs. And if Christians believe it is improper for the state to assume governing authority over the church, then they should also be alarmed if the state claims authority over other religious bodies. Once the state gets in the business of censoring religious worship, doctrine, and discipline, what stops it from usurping the church’s authority? Thus, if for no other reason, the church’s concern for the integrity of its own life and ministry ought to make Christians concerned about the integrity of other religious bodies in the face of an aggrandizing state” (202-3, emphasis added).
Here's a good quote that pertains to the matter of church-state distinctiveness: "...according to the New Testament, how the church is to worship, teach, and be governed and disciplined is under the church’s own jurisdiction, not that of the state. Bodies of qualified elders appointed by the church bear authority over such matters. To put it in terms familiar to this volume, Christian worship, doctrine, and discipline are affairs of the new covenant, not of the Noahic covenant. Christians therefore ought to resist state encroachment upon these affairs. And if Christians believe it is improper for the state to assume governing authority over the church, then they should also be alarmed if the state claims authority over other religious bodies. Once the state gets in the business of censoring religious worship, doctrine, and discipline, what stops it from usurping the church’s authority? Thus, if for no other reason, the church’s concern for the integrity of its own life and ministry ought to make Christians concerned about the integrity of other religious bodies in the face of an aggrandizing state” (202-3, emphasis added).
March 21, 2024
I think every Christian (in America at least) should read this book, because it clearly and concisely address what is probably the greatest existential question in the American church: how do we respond to the ever-shifting culture and the growing hostility toward orthodox Christian beliefs? Many Christians want to take up arms, literally or figuratively, and fight a culture war. Most Christians in the west still hold on to nostalgia for Christendom, and think it can be reachieved. But VanDrunen helps us turn to Scripture for our answer. He argues that the Noahic covenant is the basis for our common life in political communities. We ought not try to establish Christian nations, but we must contribute to the common good of our neighbors as long as God restrains his wrath. Our political mood must be one of preservation and protection, not restoration or perfection.
April 6, 2025
Great resource to think about this topic. It was the first of its kind I've read. Would recommend it to whet your appetite. It does not go into a ton of detail for specific topics, and it goes into the Noahic covenant in ways that I sometimes didn't fully follow and wasn't fully sure was fair, but then discussion is worth following and discussing with others in a group setting. Will definitely be coming back to it and thinking through some of these topics. Most beneficial was helpful categories to think through our modern politics considering the practical reality of a diverse culture after Christendom.
Read
June 10, 2020I measured my anticipation of this book by my reaction to VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms and I'm not sure that it held up; certainly this book was longer and more dry than that one, and less incendiary (I ranted about 2K, and I'm finding myself only shrugging about Politics After Christendom). He is right to point out that we are living in a time of civil crisis and we yearn for concrete answers. It's just unfortunate that he provides none, even if he can account for government structures by means of the Noahic covenant. Good academic information, though.
September 2, 2021
A major capstone volume from a very careful thinker. Overall, I am persuaded by VanDrunen‘s arguments that both political theology and political ethics should be rooted in the Noahic covenant. Some of the details of this proposal still have me thinking, and I am somewhat troubled by the assertion that, through the Noahic covenant, God does not judge political institutions for their idolatry. But a significantly thought-provoking volume.
August 20, 2022
A thoughtful study of two kingdoms theology and its implications for the calling of the State. This is VanDrunen's maturest reflection on a topic that he has spent 20 years developing. VanDrunen roots his approach to the calling of the State in the Noahic covenant. This is a fascinating proposal. This book works through a variety of issues in society (religious liberty, pluralism, political resistance, and more).
January 29, 2023
This is not a simple book. While it has a simple premise, that both Christians and non-Christians can live in respect to legitimate government by the example of the Noahic covenant of Genesis 8-9 (and how this different than the Christian conception of the Kingdom of God) the details are not quite so easy. It is a slow read, not helped by the writer's repetition and continual roadmapping of where he is going. But for the patient there is a solid Biblical argument.
October 26, 2020
Some chapters were incredibly helpful: Contours of Christian Political Theology, Natural Law and Political Community, Responsble Citizens & Patient Sojourners, and especailly Plurlism and Religious Liberty.
Others were tedious and overdone, especially those on Noahic Covenant.
Overall, useful.
Others were tedious and overdone, especially those on Noahic Covenant.
Overall, useful.
December 20, 2024
Fantastic! This is an incredibly articulate defense of classical Reformed political theology, rooted in the Noahic covenant and defended through natural and special revelation. There are moments when it feels like he is stretching the covenant aspect a bit too far, but he often acknowledges when his conclusions are inferred by consequence from Genesis, rather than explicitly stated.
June 4, 2020
I'm not sure the Noahic covenant can bear as much weight as VanDrunen wants it to, but as a Baptist I'm largely in agreement with the details of this book. The chapter "Natural Law and Political Community" is worth the price of the book.
February 21, 2021
Really good read, accessible and thorough. I am sympathetic to much of it. However at its core is an emphasis on the role of Genesis 9 (Noah’s covenant) for public theology. While I agree with a ton of the book I think the Genesis 9 argument is weak.
October 5, 2022
VanDrunen uses the Noahic Covenant as the basis for an incredibly productive analysis of what a political community is and should be. You're not going to waste your time with any of VanDrunen's three major books, but this one is an especially easy recommendation.
August 15, 2020
Very good. Clear application of scripture. Clarified some categories for me and created some new ones.
December 16, 2020
Has nothing to do with politics after Christendom. Barely readable. Nothing more than a book of descriptions and definitions which I can find on Wikipedia.
October 3, 2024
I never bothered to finish this book. I found it dull and boring. Also repetitive.
Want to read
January 18, 2021CT award of merit, best book on the topic by Paul Alexander
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews