Every now and then, the question of Christian leaders rolls around in Christian discussion. What kind of laws should they aim to enact and effect? Thoroughgoing theonomists have a clear and definite answer: impose the whole of the OT law, full kit and caboodle. Obviously, it doesn’t take much pressing into to that to see how that would begin to impose specifically Jewish regulations upon the Christians proposing it.

Recognising that, many Christian theonomists argue for something approximating full imposition of the 10 Commandments. Christian Nationalists of various stripes range from suggesting pretty much that through to more broadly arguing for the imposition of ‘Christian values’ without ever quite defining what they are or what they mean. When pressed, these groups often land on something like the threefold division of the law and argue specifically for laws predicated on the moral table of law. One of two problems typically follows.

On the one hand, many simply do not consistently adhere to their own principle. For example, the command to worship no other God but Yahweh – a clear and evident part of the moral law – is immediately argued as not appropriate for civil law. This means they land in the somewhat awkward position of insisting Christian leaders ought to encourage and pursue the moral law for the good of their nation but immediately reject core elements of the moral law being implemented. It is, let’s say, a tad inconsistent.

Others, seeing the inconsistency, argue that we should then actively seek the imposition of the the moral law. This puts them in the position of necessarily insisting that false forms of worship ought to be eradicated and clamped down on. Ironically, this would make us a theocracy little different to the Islamic ones so many of those utilising these arguments insist they do not like. Of course, it is a theocracy with Christian characteristics, but a theocracy nonetheless. It also overlooks the fact that we did exactly this in the past (Anglican Ascendancy, anyone?) and it led to quite a lot of other Christians going to prison and being locked out of universities, public office and the professions. It was Baptists and Independents who were at the forefront of fighting for freedom of religion – upon which our other freedoms are based – specifically because they felt the sharp end of this approach. Most Christians seem to be of the view that forcing belief – or outward assent to the externals of a religion you do not believe – is neither helpful nor especially Christian and thus seem to recognise freedom of religion is a good and proper thing. But as soon as we insist such is the case, we are left with the same problem: we are not then looking to implement the moral law per se (or, if we insist we are, we are being deeply inconsistent).

It is my personal view that these approaches to the biblical law are a misappropriation of what the law exists to do and how it is supposed to operate. Indeed, I am not minded to think the ten commandments could possibly work civilly except in the nation of Israel, to whom they were originally given and for whom they were ever intended. The threefold division of the law, theologically helpful as it may be in some ways to think of it this way, is not really how the Bible delineates the Old Covenant law. In many case, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between a command that is clearly presented in moral terms but is evidently civil in implementation. Think for example of the laws about leaving wheat in fields for the poor to glean, for example. These are clearly civil laws for the nation of Israel, but given a particular moral bent. Similarly, some of the ceremonial law has moral and, in some cases, civil elements to them as well. The ten commandments – the summary of the entire Old Covenant law of Israel – must be read within their canonical, covenantal and historical context.

So, on what basis ought any Christian to enact law? How should a Christian politician think biblically about their role in government and their approach to law-making and society at large? Nearly 15 years ago, before I had so much as heard the phrase “Christian Nationalism” I wrote about this very thing. You can read that here – Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society? – in which I outline how I think the ten commandments operate and how I think Christians should think about their role in serving the good of society with biblical conviction. If you want to see some more theological meat on those bones, and see how I work that out in practice, you can read this which will tell you how and why I land on the particular political views that I do.

You can, of course, disagree with me. There is some work we would have to do to define rights common to all and where we might draw them specifically from scripture. You can – even more legitimately – disagree with where I land altogether in the second post. This is where I land after drawing all my various jagged lines from my theological views to my outworking of those principles. But I would argue it has the distinct advantage of being a consistent application of the principles by which I think we ought to operate rather than an ad hoc or deeply inconsistent approach that, in my view, scripture itself does not encourage us to take.