83 As for their intent that Christians remain politically engaged, this comes not simply from a desire to show up at the democratic table but in hopes that a Christian presence can potentially influence policies. Having an optimism that change can be accomplished is necessary to activate any effort, but even winsome, diplomatic political persuasion to affect legislative action walks the line of compelling Christian standards on the public. Even if the Church through its spiritual power of humble persuasion could influence society to adopt Christian values, there will always be those who are not Christian (or our brand of “Christian”). How, then, will those whose ethical and sexual values are no longer informed by any alternative religion (or perhaps any religion at all) be honored and respected in their equal exercise of democratic freedoms? Christians may soundly argue that their moral values are best for a social order compared to secular alternatives, but in a pluralist democracy no longer possessing an agreed upon moral foundation, one currency of moral standards seeking to monopolize another produces inevitable clashing. The authors admit conflict is a necessary evil inherent to all true democracies, which restrains the greater evil of centralized, absolutist power, but political philosophers throughout the ages have warned that the chaos of excessive factionalism (diversity) inevitably drifts through a clash of freedoms toward the restriction of freedom in totalitarian quests to reestablish order (unity). The authors state that “managing differences within diversity” should be “equitable, charitable, and proportionate,” but what precisely does that mean? It is one thing to say that people should have the freedom to express themselves and disagree, but what about when it comes to actual policy legislation for the social order? While some conflict is healthy, the lack of any shared foundation or authoritative framework for defining values in the postmodern era has aggravated partisan conflict and division to polarized political impasse. For leaders and students of leadership, Wright and Bird’s book provides a readable argument for political engagement and action that seeks to be moderate. (Another example would by David VanDrunen’s Living in Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture.) With that in mind, it should provoke some meaningful reflection and discussion for Christian leaders. It could serve useful specifically to pastors, church leaders, or Christian professors in guiding them to be more biblically
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx