82 Ducere Est Servire: THE LEADERSHIP JOURNAL OF DALLAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY Wright and Bird correctly recognize the faults and imperfections of all democratic societies that allow for the freedom of differences, which makes conflict inevitable, including over a whole host of controversial issues from environmentalism to healthcare, and gun control to abortion. Yet, democracy is a better choice than a government run by, and serving the interests of, one single party, which defines oppressive, totalitarian regimes—theocratic, fascist, or Communist (122). The Church in democracies should have the freedom to bring their religious perspective to political discussions and even to serve in political office with an attempt to win others through persuasion. The Church, however, oversteps its boundaries whenever it seeks to aggressively impose its values by force of government on an unwilling society. It’s the difference between lording over and leavening public life with a Christian influence (90-91). This is where knowing the Church’s past is illuminating, witnessing the problems of Christianity’s close alignment with government from Emperor Constantine through medieval Christendom to the modern era of Western colonialism (25-34, 72, 96-97). Jesus brought the Kingdom by the love of sacrifice not a sword, and His followers must "build for" the Kingdom in the same way—and through suffering love if necessary. Although Jesus directed his truth-speaking toward the religious-political authorities of Old Covenant Israel, now that He has ascended as Lord of lords, His Kingdom is intended to transform the kingdoms of the world. However, Wright and Bird provide an important reminder that as Christians rightfully desire to see the righteousness of God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, they must beware of the temptation to build it with blueprints, tools, and methods other than those given and modeled by their crucified Lord—a suffering servant (54, 72, 78-83). Wright and Bird admit they are not political scientists but biblical theologians advocating for a more faithful and balanced Christian political engagement. In doing so, some readers interested in the complexity of specific policy arguments might find their foundationalist propositions as too generalized and simplistic.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx