Catching up with friends after a long summer is one of the great joys of life. In this first episode of Season 4, Collin, Justin, and I chat about some of our summer activities as well as some of the events that are currently happening in our world. They range from the serious (How should we pray for the Church in Afghanistan?) to the silly (Cornhole must become an Olympic sport!) And some intriguing book recommendations along the way.

Timestamps:
Welcome Back [0:00 – 1:04]
20 Free Copies of Rediscover Church for Your Church [1:04 – 4:12]
Praying for the Church in Afghanistan [4:12 – 12:55]
Field of Dreams Game [12:55 – 21:55]
Olympics [21:55 – 32:01]
The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill [32:01 – 52:05]
Summer Book Report [52:05 – 1:07:09]
Books and Everything:

Rediscover Church: Why the Body of Christ Is Essential, by Collin Hansen & Jonathan Leeman
Collin:
Churchill: Walking with Destiny, by Andrew Roberts
Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News, by JeffreyBilbro
Faithful Presence: The Promise and the Peril of Faith in the Public Square, byBill Haslam
Justin:
The Gospel according to Daniel: A Christ-Centered Approach, by Bryan Chappel
Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), by Paul House
Hearing the Message of Daniel: Sustaining Faith in Today’s World, by Christopher J.H. Wright
Keep in Step with the Spirit, by J. I. Packer
In the Kingdom of Ice: The Grand and Terrible Polar Voyage of the USS Jeannette,by Hampton Sides
After Humanity: A Guide to C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, by Michael Ward
Kevin:
Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe, by Steven Ozment
Justifying Revolution: The American Clergy’s Argument for Political Resistance, 1750-1776, by Gary L. Steward
Heralds of God, by James S. Stewart

Kevin DeYoung (PhD, University of Leicester) is senior pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, Council member of The Gospel Coalition, and associate professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte). He has written numerous books, including Just Do Something. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have nine children: Ian, Jacob, Elizabeth, Paul, Mary, Benjamin, Tabitha, Andrew, and Susannah.

It has never been easier to have a voice in the public square. Virtually anyone with access to the internet can make his (or her) ideas and opinions known to hundreds or thousands or even millions of people. And of course, there are still older forms of print communication with a large following—books, journals, magazines, newsletters, and the like. It would seem that more people are talking to each other about more things than ever before.
Or are we just talking past each other?
There will always be people who disagree with each other. That’s not necessarily a problem. And there will always be people who make bad arguments. That’s inevitable. But if we are interested in debating ideas (not just destroying people) and interested in persuading (not just performing), we will try our imperfect best to speak and write in a way that aims to be clear, measured, and open to reason.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Venting one’s spleen is easy; cultivating a disciplined life of the mind is hard.
So how do we get off the rails? How does the noble pursuit of truth turn into a hot mess of hurt feelings and recriminations? How should we not debate ideas in the public square?
Here are eight bad ideas when it comes to communicating our ideas in public:
1. Take everything personally.
I’ve learned over the years that anyone anywhere could be reading what I write or listening to what I preach. That means I try to be sensitive to the fact that people with different objections and different experiences may be on the other end of my communication. I do not want to needlessly alienate or offend. And yet, no writer or speaker can possibly anticipate every bad experience someone may associate with what is said. We’ve all suffered loss, and we’ve all been hurt—some more than others. Basic human decency says, “Let’s try not to make things worse.” At the same time, basic commonsense says, “Let’s not expect everyone else to know everything I’ve been through, and let’s not read my own sensitivities back into someone else’s motives or ideas.” In other words, try not to hurt people, and try not to be the sort of person who is easily hurt.
2. Turn everything up to 11.
If you want to rally a loyal core of followers and alienate most everyone else, crank up the rhetorical dial on everything you say and write. Get angry quickly, scold constantly, and be eager to die on every hill. We may think that we are helping the cause by making every controversy sound like the Battle of Britain and every opponent resemble the evil eye of Sauron, but in the end such rhetoric is usually self-defeating. Most people don’t want to live in a state of unrelenting intensity, and most issues are not as important as stopping Hitler’s conquest of Europe. If you want to be an effective communicator (over the long haul), move up and down the emotional register. Save 11 for when you really need it.
3. Assume your experience is the way things really are.
Most of us do it to some extent: we look at the world figuring the world as we’ve experienced it is normal. If we’ve been treated fairly most of the time, we assume the world is pretty fair. If we’ve worked hard and got ahead, we think others should be able to do the same. If we’ve seen good authority or have been in positions of authority, we tend to trust authority. On the other hand, if we’ve been betrayed by those in authority, we tend to assume the worst about persons in authority. If we’ve been lied to and abused, we tend to see abusers and enablers around every corner. If we’ve been hurt by conservative Christians, we may be especially wary of conservative Christianity. And on and on. Of course, our experiences—good, bad, and ugly—can be powerful motivators, pushing us to guard against theological error or speak out against dangerous people and patterns. But we must not assume that our experience has been everyone’s experience. We must be careful not to present assumptions as facts. We must not let a wonderful “normal” make us blind to corruption and evil, nor should we allow our painful “normal” to so color our vision that we take down people who do not deserve our wrath.
4. Refuse to deal in nuance.
Complex problems rarely have simple explanations, and even more infrequently do they have simple solutions. If the solutions were easy—especially for problems that everyone would like to see changed—they probably would have been implemented by now. People are usually multilayered, a mixture of good and bad and everything in between. History is usually complicated, filled with villains who get some things right and heroes who get some things wrong. And explaining why things are the way they are is not always straightforward. Monocausal explanations for social ills and societal trends are rarely right. The better explanation for the way things are the way they are is usually a combination of personal choices, cultural forces, intellectual assumptions, technological innovations, and a staggering array of different experiences, opportunities, gifts, abilities, advantages, and disadvantages.
5. Make everything about everything.
Our communication will never be profitable if we expect every article or every post or every book to say everything that needs to be said. We must be able to focus on a specific topic, debate, or idea without insisting that our opponents provide a caveat for every possible exception, a paragraph for every possible hurt, and an answer to every related problem. Of course, we don’t want to be ignorant about the various connecting ideas (see “nuance” above) or indifferent to the various questions people might raise, but we have to be able to deal rationally with the issue at hand. It’s okay to talk about one thing at a time.
6. Discount individuals and their ideas based on their group identity.
Although individualism can be of the dangerous expressive type, there is also a good kind of individualism. As Christians, we believe that each person is made in God’s image, that each person is responsible for his or her actions, and that each person will stand as an individual before God. To be sure, we are more than individuals. Being a man or a woman, an American or a Pakistani, a Black upper-class father or a White lower-class single mother shapes who we are and how we see things. But we should not dismiss other people’s arguments because the one making those arguments is male or female, Black or White, rich or poor. Bad arguments are bad even when our tribe makes them, and good arguments are good even when they come from the group we’ve been told we cannot trust. Argue with ideas not with stereotypes.
7. Pay no attention to the type of communication you are having.
As digital communication has gotten easier, the lines of demarcation between different kinds of communication has gotten fuzzier. This confusion can be found across different digital platforms (i.e., using Twitter for intricate and emotionally charged debates), but it also stretches across entirely different modes of communication. I’ve had people say to me before, “I read that article. Is that how you would counsel someone struggling with X?” But of course, a book or a blog post is written to a general audience not to a specific person. When talking in person in a private setting, you can ask questions, read facial gestures, ask for follow up, express sympathy, say a prayer, listen to someone’s story, and acknowledge pain. Public communication should not be rude and uncaring, but it will always be to some degree impersonal. When we load all means of discourse with therapeutic expectations—held hostage by the emotional needs of those listening or speaking—we treat books and articles and reviews and sermons as private encounters, just on a larger scale, instead of different kinds of communication altogether.
8. Forget that your opponents are real people.
I’m sure I’ve told this story before. Soon after I started blogging I wrote a snarky article about another Christian leader. A few days later I was speaking at a conference, and to my surprise I was sharing the platform with someone who worked with this leader. The man confronted me about what I had written. As much as I didn’t enjoy that interaction, it was the Lord’s grace to me. It reminded me of what I should have known but so many of us forget, that the people I disagree with are still real people. I’m sure I haven’t done it perfectly, but since that interaction over a decade ago I’ve always tried to think as I write or speak, “Is this what I would say and how I would say it if this person or these people were in the room? Would I be embarrassed to run into this person at a conference next week?” That doesn’t mean we cannot challenge each other in books and in blog posts. It doesn’t mean we cannot say hard or even pointed things to and about each other. But that lesson many years ago cemented in my brain that even famous people—athletes, movie stars, politicians, well-known Christians—are flesh and blood human beings. They may be better or worse than I think, but they have feelings too and are deserving of basic decency and respect.

Kevin DeYoung (PhD, University of Leicester) is senior pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, Council member of The Gospel Coalition, and associate professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte). He has written numerous books, including Just Do Something. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have nine children: Ian, Jacob, Elizabeth, Paul, Mary, Benjamin, Tabitha, Andrew, and Susannah.

Romans 13 doesn’t tell us everything we need to know about the nature and purpose of government, but it puts in place some of the most foundational building blocks.
Here again is Paul’s famous teaching on God and government:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. And those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscious. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Rom. 13:1-7)

What do we see in this passage about the nature and purpose of government? Let me make four observations.
1. The government’s authority is a derived authority. We see this right from the beginning: “there is no authority except from God” (v. 1). Any lawful governing authority has that authority on account of God—the only absolute, supreme authority.
There are three great societies on the earth—the home, the church, and the state—each of which have its authority from God. Within the home, children obey their parents, and the husband is the head of his wife. Within the church, the elders exercise loving authority over the sheep. Within the state, there are civil magistrates to exercise governing authority over people. These magistrates may be called kings or queens or governors or presidents or the police, but regardless of the political arrangement the idea is the same. Government’s authority comes from God.
2. The government’s authority is a divine authority. This point not only follows from the first; it is made explicit in the text. The authorities that exist “have been instituted by God” (v. 1). Further, “whoever resists the authorities, resists what God has appointed” (v. 2). The language is even more striking in verse 4 where Paul calls the magistrate “God’s servant.” The Greek word is diákonos, from which we get our word deacon. Likewise, verse 6 calls these same authorities “ministers of God.” The Greek word is leitourgos, from which we get our word liturgist. The civil magistrate is not an officer in the church (not de facto anyway), but his office in the world is a type of ministry. As John Stott puts is, quite provocatively, “Those who serve the state as legislators, civil servants, magistrates, police officers, social workers, even tax collectors, are just as much ministers of God as those who serve the church as pastors, teachers, evangelists, or administrators.” Of course, we don’t want to confuse “ministers of God” with pastors in the church, but strictly speaking Stott’s statement is manifestly biblical. The governing authorities serve society by ministering on God’s behalf.
Before leaving this second point, let me make two related points.
One, it’s always good to hold Romans 13 in tension with Revelation 13. If Romans 13 describes the ways things are supposed to be, then Revelation 13 describes the sad reality of the ways things often are. In Revelation 13 we are introduced to the beast—the idolatrous, blaspheming, persecuting corruption of governmental power. The authorities meant to do the work of God sometimes do the work of the Devil.
Two, I think it is fair to assume that Romans 13 is talking about lawful authority. By “lawful” I don’t mean “authority we always appreciate” or “authority that is always exercised with absolute integrity.” Surely we must obey the governing authorities even when we struggle to respect those in positions over us. And yet, Paul is not suggesting that any old person can call himself king and demand your obedience, or that any 10 people can form a militia and exercise their own vigilante justice under the claim of God-given authority. Some authority is appropriate, and some is not. Paul was willing to submit to the high priest in a way he would not submit to the false apostles in the church.
This is an important point if we are to make sense of the American experiment. The Declaration of Independence says this: “Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If you were raised in America, you probably love that sentence. But have you ever stopped to think if it is true? After all, Romans 13 tells us that the government’s authority comes from God, not from the people. Is the Declaration of Independence unbiblical?
That depends on how you read it. If you put the emphasis on powers, then Jefferson’s sentence is at odds with Romans 13. Government derives its power from God, not from the consent of the governed. But you could also put the emphasis on just powers. On this reading, the Declaration is not denying that government may derive its authority from God; it is arguing that what establishes government as a lawful authority is the consent of the governed. This reading echoes the position of John Locke, who argued in his notes on Romans 13 that the supreme civil power “is in every commonwealth derived from God,” but “how men come to a rightful title to this power or who has that title, Paul is wholly silent and says nothing of it.” In other words, government’s authority is a divine authority, but determining who or what has a right to that divine authority in a given context is a matter that must draw from prudential wisdom and other philosophical considerations. Locke would say the government’s power comes from God, but the lawfulness of government comes from the consent of the people. I don’t think the Bible requires Locke’s understanding of social contract theory, but I think his interpretation of Romans 13 rightly separates the question of derived authority from the question of lawful power.
3. The primary responsibility of government is to restrain and punish evil. Look at the language in Romans 13. Verse two speaks of incurring judgment. Verse three asserts that the governing authorities are a terror to bad conduct. Later, we are told that evildoers should fear the one who is in authority (v. 3) and fear the one who bears the sword (v. 4). Those who exercise judgment on behalf of the governing authorities are the original avengers (v. 4). They are God’s servants, carrying out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (v. 4).
Remember, the argument of Romans 13 is, in part, an answer to the exhortation of Romans 12. In Romans 12:19 we are told “never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.” Even if we are persecuted, even if we are wronged, even if we are oppressed, we must not take vengeance into our own hands. We look to God to execute justice through the ministers and servants to whom he has given the power of the sword. We do not put to death the murderer, but the government can (Gen. 9:6).
In short, the first and most primary responsibility of government is to uphold the law and to punish the lawbreaker. To put it positively, government’s God-given task is to protect the life and the possessions of its citizens.
4. The secondary responsibility of government is to approve what is good. We see this in verse 3: “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good and you will receive his approval.” This means that government ought to enact policies that encourage and normalize good behavior. The wise magistrate, with good laws and the fair execution of justice, will nurture the cultivation of personal responsibility, the pursuit of healthy family life, and the establishment of economic conditions that reward hard work and productivity.
Put these two responsibilities together (points 3 and 4), and you could say government is at its best when the people can be confident of two things:
(1) No matter who I am, what I look like, where I am from, how much I possess, or how many connections I have, if I am violent toward my neighbor or toward his property, I will be punished.
And (2) no matter who I am, what I look like, where I am from, how much I possess, or how many connections I have, if I follow the rules and do what is good, the government will stay out of my business and provide the conditions for me to get ahead in life.
That’s what government should be about: protecting life and promoting good behavior. As Paul says elsewhere, let us pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2).

Kevin DeYoung (PhD, University of Leicester) is senior pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, Council member of The Gospel Coalition, and associate professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte). He has written numerous books, including Just Do Something. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have nine children: Ian, Jacob, Elizabeth, Paul, Mary, Benjamin, Tabitha, Andrew, and Susannah.