Read on Twitter
Sometimes theologians esp in the two-kingdoms tradition distinguish God's "providential rule" from his "redemptive rule." I sympathize with what the distinction is trying to accomplish, but say it a little differently (the following is from Political Church):
God rules all things exhaustively, as evidenced by the fact that he will one day judge all things. FUTURE JUDGMENT IMPLIES PRSENT RULE. Since Genesis 3, however, there's been a distinction between where God's rule is visible and where it's not, where acknowledged and not.
The storyline of redemptive history is the story of him making his rule visible in different ways: through mighty acts of salvation and judgment, through covenantal signs, through his people. When theologians refer to "redemptive rule," this is what they mean.
For instance, when the Gospels say his kingdom has come, they don't mean God didn't rule, and now he does. No, he's ALWAYS ruled. The language means his rule is now manifest, expressed, shown, made visible, and (by believers) acknowledged.
The WORK of the church is to say to the nations: "Jesus is YOUR king. You have offended him gravely. And he's coming to render judgment upon you. But good news: he offers a pardon to all who repent and believe."
The AUTHORITY of the church is to declare WHAT and WHO belongs to Jesus and represents his rule: "This is a true confession." "This is a true confessor." It has the authority to VISIBLE-IZE Christ's rule.
Christians in government (whether a voter or a president) should govern knowing that Jesus is king of all and will judge all things. Nothing escapes his judgment. But Christians in government don't possess that church authority to name things on heaven's behalf. End.
