What do you think?
Rate this book
Het Koninkrijk en de staat: Christen-zijn in een turbulent politiek landschap
Moeten christenen deelname aan de politiek vermijden om hun profetische stem te behouden? Of moeten christenen politiek actief betrokken zijn om de macht in handen te houden?
De bekende theologen Tom Wright en Michael F. Bird zeggen: ook in een tijdperk van oprukkende autocratieën, van polarisatie en crises, is Jezus koning en blijft Jezus’ koninkrijk het doel van het getuigenis en werk van de kerk. Daarom is het belangrijk dat christenen begrijpen wat er in de wereld om hen heen gebeurt en hun getuigenis blijven laten horen.
Door mee te werken aan vrije, democratische staten, bouwen christenen over de hele wereld mee aan het koninkrijk van God, dat er al is en nog moet komen.
De bekende theologen Tom Wright en Michael F. Bird zeggen: ook in een tijdperk van oprukkende autocratieën, van polarisatie en crises, is Jezus koning en blijft Jezus’ koninkrijk het doel van het getuigenis en werk van de kerk. Daarom is het belangrijk dat christenen begrijpen wat er in de wereld om hen heen gebeurt en hun getuigenis blijven laten horen.
Door mee te werken aan vrije, democratische staten, bouwen christenen over de hele wereld mee aan het koninkrijk van God, dat er al is en nog moet komen.
224 pages, Paperback
First published March 26, 2024
685 people are currently reading
2076 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
461 books2,877 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 182 reviews
May 1, 2024
This book basically tries to argue for an Anglican/O’Donovan political theology over and against Chistian nationalism and anarchism. The book felt sloppy. For a book that was to be centered on biblical studies and first century history, its engagement in those fields was weak. I also thought they did not engage deeply and honestly with the Neo-Anabaptist critique of Christians collusion with the state or with the rampant Theonomist/nationalism that has infected the American conservative Protestant church.
I think the vision Wright and Bird offer for political engagement is probably the best of its kind, (other then O’Donovan who they owe a great deal) but I think it comes out to “if everyone acted as Christ would and could resist the urge to use coercion for their own ideological ends, and we all could value the image of God in our neighbors, then that is how Christians can participate in government. Which feels just as pie in the sky as Anarchism or communism or libertarianism. The thesis would be easier to swallow if I wasn’t watching the current election cycle in the year of our Lord 2024.
All that being said, Bird’s defense of liberal democracy is good. Also Wrights criticism of American imperialism as equal to that of Putin in Ukraine was delightful.
Anyway… 2.5… and am looking for more political theology to read
I think the vision Wright and Bird offer for political engagement is probably the best of its kind, (other then O’Donovan who they owe a great deal) but I think it comes out to “if everyone acted as Christ would and could resist the urge to use coercion for their own ideological ends, and we all could value the image of God in our neighbors, then that is how Christians can participate in government. Which feels just as pie in the sky as Anarchism or communism or libertarianism. The thesis would be easier to swallow if I wasn’t watching the current election cycle in the year of our Lord 2024.
All that being said, Bird’s defense of liberal democracy is good. Also Wrights criticism of American imperialism as equal to that of Putin in Ukraine was delightful.
Anyway… 2.5… and am looking for more political theology to read
July 10, 2024
It’s a restatement of the key points of political theology, and especially the relationship between church and state. It would serve as an excellent introductory work to the subject matter. Needless to say, Wright and Bird are gifted Christian authors. They have a masterful way of putting things into perspective.
For busy readers, I recommend that you start from chapter 5 and read all the way to the end.
I’ll just leave you with five of my best quotes from the book:
[1] When such leaders [Chrisitian nationalist leaders] are venerated with religious adulation, the result inevitably is that any critique of them, no matter how valid, is treated as either treason or blasphemy… The messianising of leaders to prop up an imagined ‘Christian empire’ can have dire consequences for social freedoms as well as proving injurious to the integrity of the Church’s own witness when it allies itself too closely with an earthly power. Remember that the Scriptures have a special title for someone who claims to possess kingly and religious authority, who is both presidential and priestly: the word is ‘Antichrist’. Such a person is against Christ by assuming Christ’s own role, because Christ alone is both messianic King and the Great High Priest.
[2] Is disobedience to government possible for the Christian? The answer is ‘yes’, for two reasons. First, no earthly institution, whether monarch or magistrate, possesses absolute authority. The authority of the State is not an inviolable position but a performance of service, a service rendered to God and exercised for the people. The government’s authority is, then, conditional upon its performance to meet God’s standards of righteousness and to win the consensus of the people in how they wish to be governed. Second, while government is divinely instituted for the common good, and should be obeyed in principle, not every governor is good. Government should not be obeyed in every instance, especially if it interferes with religious liberty, acts unlawfully, or renders harm to its own people.
[3] [R]eligion, within civic totalism [where the State is invested with all power and seeks to regulate as much of public and private life as possible], is regarded as dangerous, since religion ascribes notions of ultimacy to something other than the State and the State’s vision for the public good. Tyrants such as Herod, Nero or any contemporary example always fly into fits of rage when they hear rumours of ‘another king’ to whom people are paying homage. For civic totalists, the danger of religion is that it creates a competing social vision and an alternative morality, which divides the loyalty of citizens away from the State’s objectives for human conduct, rendering certain forms of religion as hostile to the State’s ambitions. In civic totalism, religion is permitted, but it is either a state-approved religion, or else, and more to the point, politics is the religion. In a godless age there are still gods, but people’s religious energy and their worshipping proclivities are translated into the political arena.
[4] True, there are limits to religious freedom and freedom of speech. However, if we are to maintain the liberalism of a liberal democracy, there must always be limits to the limits we put on basic rights.
[5] Democracy is only as good as the people and institutions guarding it.
Excellent work as usual.
For busy readers, I recommend that you start from chapter 5 and read all the way to the end.
I’ll just leave you with five of my best quotes from the book:
[1] When such leaders [Chrisitian nationalist leaders] are venerated with religious adulation, the result inevitably is that any critique of them, no matter how valid, is treated as either treason or blasphemy… The messianising of leaders to prop up an imagined ‘Christian empire’ can have dire consequences for social freedoms as well as proving injurious to the integrity of the Church’s own witness when it allies itself too closely with an earthly power. Remember that the Scriptures have a special title for someone who claims to possess kingly and religious authority, who is both presidential and priestly: the word is ‘Antichrist’. Such a person is against Christ by assuming Christ’s own role, because Christ alone is both messianic King and the Great High Priest.
[2] Is disobedience to government possible for the Christian? The answer is ‘yes’, for two reasons. First, no earthly institution, whether monarch or magistrate, possesses absolute authority. The authority of the State is not an inviolable position but a performance of service, a service rendered to God and exercised for the people. The government’s authority is, then, conditional upon its performance to meet God’s standards of righteousness and to win the consensus of the people in how they wish to be governed. Second, while government is divinely instituted for the common good, and should be obeyed in principle, not every governor is good. Government should not be obeyed in every instance, especially if it interferes with religious liberty, acts unlawfully, or renders harm to its own people.
[3] [R]eligion, within civic totalism [where the State is invested with all power and seeks to regulate as much of public and private life as possible], is regarded as dangerous, since religion ascribes notions of ultimacy to something other than the State and the State’s vision for the public good. Tyrants such as Herod, Nero or any contemporary example always fly into fits of rage when they hear rumours of ‘another king’ to whom people are paying homage. For civic totalists, the danger of religion is that it creates a competing social vision and an alternative morality, which divides the loyalty of citizens away from the State’s objectives for human conduct, rendering certain forms of religion as hostile to the State’s ambitions. In civic totalism, religion is permitted, but it is either a state-approved religion, or else, and more to the point, politics is the religion. In a godless age there are still gods, but people’s religious energy and their worshipping proclivities are translated into the political arena.
[4] True, there are limits to religious freedom and freedom of speech. However, if we are to maintain the liberalism of a liberal democracy, there must always be limits to the limits we put on basic rights.
[5] Democracy is only as good as the people and institutions guarding it.
Excellent work as usual.
December 4, 2024
A book with many nice platitudes that manages to dodge almost every difficult issue while still condemning everyone the authors dislike.
April 1, 2024
3.5. A helpful primer on how Christians can and should bear witness to Jesus's kingdom in the public square. Wright and Bird made many accurate points and I especially enjoyed their exegesis of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 and warnings against the depravity of Christian nationalism. They conclude that liberal democracy infused with confident pluralism is the system of government most conducive to human flourishing and Christian witness (I agree). The reason I don't rate the book higher is simply due to the fact that I didn't feel as though there were many groundbreaking insights and in some ways I felt it lacked Wright's typical witty, relatable writing style.
August 15, 2024
2.5 rounded up. John Nugent’s review on Englewood captures many of my concerns:
https://englewoodreview.org/n-t-wrigh...
https://englewoodreview.org/n-t-wrigh...
October 3, 2024
TL;DR
Good book, hard read at some points, but a meaningful and challenging conversation.
Full review includes quotes and personal insights
I thought this book was really insightful in the current political climate. I appreciated that both Bird and Wright, spoke with perspective from a global lens. They builds their argument starting with how the early church relates to government (a time of authoritarian rule), a history of Church and State, and ends his book talking about the freedoms Christians (and others) have in a liberal democracy.
As one that chooses a political perspective pledging allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven above pledging allegiance to the flag, I still found this book challenging. Not however, because Wright and Bird disagree on the significance of being Kingdom first. Admittedly, my Kingdom First disposition occasionally creates apathy regarding civic discourse. They write:
“We must be political in some sense because the kingdom of God has political implications for the proclamation and poverty, for justice and judgment, for Congress and Church for love and liberty.”
Write and Bird appropriately critique a theocratic society as well as authoritarian regimes such as Fascism and Communism. It feels in the current American context of the extremes one side is vying for a Theocracy while the other is fighting for a Socail Utopia. The authors fairly critique the dangers of Christian Nationalism stating “Christian Nationalism is impoverished as it seeks a kingdom without a cross. It pursues a victory without mercy. It acclaims God’s love of power rather than the power of God’s love.” While also criticizing Civic Totality by stating “[R]eligion, within civic totalism, is regarded as dangerous, since religion ascribes notions of ultimatum to something other than the State and State’s vision for the public good.””In a godless age there are still gods, but people’s religious energy and their worshipping proclivities are translated in the political arena.”
The conclusion that the authors make is that a certain type of pluralistic society within a liberal democratic context is likely one where there is the most opportunity for Christians to thrive and share the Gospel. They state “Confident Pluralism allows genuine differences to coexist without suppressing or minimizing our firmly held convictions. We can embrace pluralism precisely because we are confident in our own beliefs and institutions that sustain them” “This pluralism is not the ultimate goal of Christian endeavors, but it is expedient for the promotion of the gospel and and the practice of peace on earth.”
They do believe Christians thrive in democracy, and therefore should participate in democracy by voting, speaking up against injustice, and even participating in government.
Overall, a challenging book, but a welcomed book. Some parts were harder to read than others. Political theology can be a dry topic, but they each did a really nice job on the discussion. Rating 4/5 due to aspects of the book being hard for a non-scholar to fully grasp. A well written book, but hard to approach at times.
Good book, hard read at some points, but a meaningful and challenging conversation.
Full review includes quotes and personal insights
I thought this book was really insightful in the current political climate. I appreciated that both Bird and Wright, spoke with perspective from a global lens. They builds their argument starting with how the early church relates to government (a time of authoritarian rule), a history of Church and State, and ends his book talking about the freedoms Christians (and others) have in a liberal democracy.
As one that chooses a political perspective pledging allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven above pledging allegiance to the flag, I still found this book challenging. Not however, because Wright and Bird disagree on the significance of being Kingdom first. Admittedly, my Kingdom First disposition occasionally creates apathy regarding civic discourse. They write:
“We must be political in some sense because the kingdom of God has political implications for the proclamation and poverty, for justice and judgment, for Congress and Church for love and liberty.”
Write and Bird appropriately critique a theocratic society as well as authoritarian regimes such as Fascism and Communism. It feels in the current American context of the extremes one side is vying for a Theocracy while the other is fighting for a Socail Utopia. The authors fairly critique the dangers of Christian Nationalism stating “Christian Nationalism is impoverished as it seeks a kingdom without a cross. It pursues a victory without mercy. It acclaims God’s love of power rather than the power of God’s love.” While also criticizing Civic Totality by stating “[R]eligion, within civic totalism, is regarded as dangerous, since religion ascribes notions of ultimatum to something other than the State and State’s vision for the public good.””In a godless age there are still gods, but people’s religious energy and their worshipping proclivities are translated in the political arena.”
The conclusion that the authors make is that a certain type of pluralistic society within a liberal democratic context is likely one where there is the most opportunity for Christians to thrive and share the Gospel. They state “Confident Pluralism allows genuine differences to coexist without suppressing or minimizing our firmly held convictions. We can embrace pluralism precisely because we are confident in our own beliefs and institutions that sustain them” “This pluralism is not the ultimate goal of Christian endeavors, but it is expedient for the promotion of the gospel and and the practice of peace on earth.”
They do believe Christians thrive in democracy, and therefore should participate in democracy by voting, speaking up against injustice, and even participating in government.
Overall, a challenging book, but a welcomed book. Some parts were harder to read than others. Political theology can be a dry topic, but they each did a really nice job on the discussion. Rating 4/5 due to aspects of the book being hard for a non-scholar to fully grasp. A well written book, but hard to approach at times.
October 5, 2025
NT Wright and Michael Bird's "Jesus and the Powers," is a timely and important book. Wright and Bird tackle the question: what ought a Christian political witness be in our age? Navigating the contemporary context, the history of the Christian witness, and the biblical text, Wright and Bird do an adept job of answering the question.
Because of the heft of the lift, it's unlikely that many will be fully swayed to Bird and Wright's position by this volume alone, but it's an excellent introduction. I was perhaps most surprised by how well these two biblical scholars handled the historical sections. Wright can be dismissive at times and Bird helps temper that voice a bit, although I wish there would have been stronger bridges built to those with other views in the book and I wish there would have been more robust handling of issues such as governance and pacifism.
Because of the heft of the lift, it's unlikely that many will be fully swayed to Bird and Wright's position by this volume alone, but it's an excellent introduction. I was perhaps most surprised by how well these two biblical scholars handled the historical sections. Wright can be dismissive at times and Bird helps temper that voice a bit, although I wish there would have been stronger bridges built to those with other views in the book and I wish there would have been more robust handling of issues such as governance and pacifism.
April 4, 2025
This is a very good book about how Christians should relate to the government. The authors cover difficult topics such as tolerance and resistance. If you're looking for a book about politics from a Christian point of view that is about how to think, not what to think, this is a good one.
August 8, 2025
A spirited defense of Liberal Democracy, despite its being abandoned increasingly by right and left, which few seem to notice until it is the political other who is in power. Thomas Aquinas thought monarchy the ideal form of governance, though also the one subject to the greatest abuse, capable of the greatest evil. Today there are Christian advocates of Libertarianism, Post Liberalism, Anarchism, et al, but these alternatives receive short shrift here. Unfortunate. Since as our society becomes increasingly post and anti Christian, one wonders whether Liberal Democracy remains practically viable. The authors themselves note that it hangs upon a common Christian heritage. This raises a question not here explored: the impact of massive waves of immigration from populations not sharing this heritage. But this is only indicative of another weakness of the book, its reluctance to speak with fully articulated perspectives to specific issues that are currently tearing Liberal Democracies apart and for which governments increasingly act illiberally.
December 27, 2024
More substantial on matters of political theology and philosophy than I imagined it would be, but still accessible to a broad audience.
August 16, 2025
On certain autumn mornings I go out to my car and it is covered in a foggy mist. I get in the car, turn on the wiper blades and hope that the mist gets swept away so I can see clearly out the windshield. Despite the frantic flapping of the wipers, side to side, the mist just smears and streaks and my vision is not improved. “Jesus and the Powers” smears and smudges about topics like “powers”, “building for the kingdom”, and “liberal democracy.
If there are spiritual powers at play behind political upheaval, this book doesn’t make clear who these powers are, how we could recognize them, and what course of action we would take if we did.
“Building for the kingdom” is a mirky phrase the book uses to describe Christian witness in the world. This witness is such that humans take actions to prepare the world for the kingdom God himself builds. It’s unclear what kind of civic involvement builds for the kingdom. Describing The Kingdom in juxtaposition to Empire using biblical sources such as Revelation would have gone a long way to providing a target for Christians to aim at.
The book argues in a choppy manner that The Kingdom resists Empire. It claims that systems which totalize, such as communism and fascism must be resisted, and that liberal democracy is the best political avenue to resist Empire. While liberal democracy is perhaps the best system among flawed human systems, the reader is left asking what happens when liberal democracy is gamed and becomes totalitarian in its functioning?
In group discussion, the book works well enough to raise topics, generate debate, and get the readers thinking deeply about Kingdom and Empire. However, the book itself does not cut through the political fog and give a clear vision through which to proceed.
If there are spiritual powers at play behind political upheaval, this book doesn’t make clear who these powers are, how we could recognize them, and what course of action we would take if we did.
“Building for the kingdom” is a mirky phrase the book uses to describe Christian witness in the world. This witness is such that humans take actions to prepare the world for the kingdom God himself builds. It’s unclear what kind of civic involvement builds for the kingdom. Describing The Kingdom in juxtaposition to Empire using biblical sources such as Revelation would have gone a long way to providing a target for Christians to aim at.
The book argues in a choppy manner that The Kingdom resists Empire. It claims that systems which totalize, such as communism and fascism must be resisted, and that liberal democracy is the best political avenue to resist Empire. While liberal democracy is perhaps the best system among flawed human systems, the reader is left asking what happens when liberal democracy is gamed and becomes totalitarian in its functioning?
In group discussion, the book works well enough to raise topics, generate debate, and get the readers thinking deeply about Kingdom and Empire. However, the book itself does not cut through the political fog and give a clear vision through which to proceed.
April 15, 2025
“Christian nationalism is impoverished as it seeks a kingdom without a cross. It pursues a victory without mercy. It acclaims God’s love of power rather than the power of God’s love. We must remember that Jesus refused those who wanted to ‘make him king’ by force just as much as he refused to become king by calling upon ‘twelve legions of angels’."
A great discussion on how Christians are called to bear witness to the kingdom of God in the public square. This book is a rich and timely contribution to political theology, tackling pressing questions such as: Should Christians engage in politics or remain separate? When should believers obey God rather than government? What is the Christian’s responsibility in the public square? And just how deeply Christian Nationalism conflicts with the true nature of God's Kingdom. Wright and Bird offer a compelling and accessible historical exploration of the early church, powerfully illustrating just how political it was to proclaim Jesus as King. Thoughtful and thought-provoking, I recommend this to anyone interested in the intersection of faith and politics today.
A great discussion on how Christians are called to bear witness to the kingdom of God in the public square. This book is a rich and timely contribution to political theology, tackling pressing questions such as: Should Christians engage in politics or remain separate? When should believers obey God rather than government? What is the Christian’s responsibility in the public square? And just how deeply Christian Nationalism conflicts with the true nature of God's Kingdom. Wright and Bird offer a compelling and accessible historical exploration of the early church, powerfully illustrating just how political it was to proclaim Jesus as King. Thoughtful and thought-provoking, I recommend this to anyone interested in the intersection of faith and politics today.
August 15, 2024
Excellent. It had a bit of everything. This is my kind of political theology; I wish I had written it. Very theological in the beginning, very political in the end. Covers aspects of history, theology, philosophy, political science and more. In many ways it puts political science books to shame and has an insightful and fair view and critique of today's social and political reality. I could do with a more pronounced pneumatology, but that's just me. Not the best book, academically speaking, on political theology and certainly not the only one. But it is very well written, with a clear argument, a strong critique and message, that is deeply theological and politically oriented.
August 23, 2025
3.5 stars (between good and very good)
There is certainly some useful discussion here about how Christians should think about and engage with politics, but overall it is not as enlightening or helpful as I was hoping. The topic deserves a more robust treatment.
I appreciate how Wright and Bird stress that we are not building the kingdom, we are building for the kingdom.
Here is their summary of how Christians should view governmental authority:
“1 God gives authority to the State for the common good;
2 the State does not possess authority as much as it performs a divinely delegated task with authority;
3 the notion of a divinely delegated state authority as per Christendom was open to manifold abuses, hence the need for an authority that operates on the basis of the consensus of the governed;
4 the problem with stateship from below is that it becomes fragmented and fratricidal without a sustaining narrative or a supporting vision of the common good; therefore
5 Christians can insist that the State is neither infallible nor inviolable; it answers to God, and the stories and symbols of Jesus can furnish a republic or commonwealth with resources to forge bonds of civil affection and common purpose.”
On the question of what political system is best, the authors favor liberal democracy:
“Nobody believes it is self-evident that all men [and women] are created equal unless they have read and been shaped by Genesis 1:27 about men and women in the 'image of God' and 'God loved the world…”from John 3:16. Human rights and religious pluralism have their deepest roots in countries formed by missional Protestantism. Political liberalism, far from being the formidable foe of Christianity, proves in fact to be its lost child, who refuses to believe the truth about its paternity.
“Liberal democracy is ‘liberal' in the sense that it regards civic freedoms as an inherent good that should not be subject to limitation unless completely necessary, and it is democratic in the sense that voting rights apply equally to all citizens and each citizen's vote should have the same weight. We write now neither to celebrate nor to castigate liberal democracy. Instead, we wish to prosecute the thesis that in a world with a human propensity for evil, greed and injustice, liberal democracy stands as the least worst option for human governance. Liberal democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a just society, but it can be an enabling condition for a just society.”
Finally, they make the case for “confident pluralism,” which presents a more modest goal than E pluribus unum, suggesting that we can all just live together in our “manyness”:
“Confident pluralism has a very simple premise, namely, that people have the right to be different, to think differently, to live differently, to worship differently, without fear of reprisal. Confident pluralism operates with the idea that politics has instrumental rather than ultimate value. In other words, politics is a means, not an end. No state, no political party, no leader is God-like, or can demand blind devotion. Any attempt by political actors to create social homogeneity by compelling conformity, by bullying minorities or by punishing dissent, whether in religion or in policy, is anti-liberal and undemocratic. As Australian political leader Tim Wilson writes: 'A free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but instead, affirms diversity and advocates for tolerance and mutual respect.’”
There is certainly some useful discussion here about how Christians should think about and engage with politics, but overall it is not as enlightening or helpful as I was hoping. The topic deserves a more robust treatment.
I appreciate how Wright and Bird stress that we are not building the kingdom, we are building for the kingdom.
Here is their summary of how Christians should view governmental authority:
“1 God gives authority to the State for the common good;
2 the State does not possess authority as much as it performs a divinely delegated task with authority;
3 the notion of a divinely delegated state authority as per Christendom was open to manifold abuses, hence the need for an authority that operates on the basis of the consensus of the governed;
4 the problem with stateship from below is that it becomes fragmented and fratricidal without a sustaining narrative or a supporting vision of the common good; therefore
5 Christians can insist that the State is neither infallible nor inviolable; it answers to God, and the stories and symbols of Jesus can furnish a republic or commonwealth with resources to forge bonds of civil affection and common purpose.”
On the question of what political system is best, the authors favor liberal democracy:
“Nobody believes it is self-evident that all men [and women] are created equal unless they have read and been shaped by Genesis 1:27 about men and women in the 'image of God' and 'God loved the world…”from John 3:16. Human rights and religious pluralism have their deepest roots in countries formed by missional Protestantism. Political liberalism, far from being the formidable foe of Christianity, proves in fact to be its lost child, who refuses to believe the truth about its paternity.
“Liberal democracy is ‘liberal' in the sense that it regards civic freedoms as an inherent good that should not be subject to limitation unless completely necessary, and it is democratic in the sense that voting rights apply equally to all citizens and each citizen's vote should have the same weight. We write now neither to celebrate nor to castigate liberal democracy. Instead, we wish to prosecute the thesis that in a world with a human propensity for evil, greed and injustice, liberal democracy stands as the least worst option for human governance. Liberal democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a just society, but it can be an enabling condition for a just society.”
Finally, they make the case for “confident pluralism,” which presents a more modest goal than E pluribus unum, suggesting that we can all just live together in our “manyness”:
“Confident pluralism has a very simple premise, namely, that people have the right to be different, to think differently, to live differently, to worship differently, without fear of reprisal. Confident pluralism operates with the idea that politics has instrumental rather than ultimate value. In other words, politics is a means, not an end. No state, no political party, no leader is God-like, or can demand blind devotion. Any attempt by political actors to create social homogeneity by compelling conformity, by bullying minorities or by punishing dissent, whether in religion or in policy, is anti-liberal and undemocratic. As Australian political leader Tim Wilson writes: 'A free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but instead, affirms diversity and advocates for tolerance and mutual respect.’”
April 1, 2024
Readable and fair treatment of strengths and threats
Byrd and right present a readable and powerful discussion of empire, government, and internal threats, and how Christianity is to respond to them and has responded to them. (I'm painting with the broad brush here.) I believe they provide fair coverage of threats from the right, which some see all too well, as well as threats from the left, like civic totalism, which also need to be addressed. they then hopefully argue that a liberal democracy provides the best opportunity for Christians to love their neighbor.
Byrd and right present a readable and powerful discussion of empire, government, and internal threats, and how Christianity is to respond to them and has responded to them. (I'm painting with the broad brush here.) I believe they provide fair coverage of threats from the right, which some see all too well, as well as threats from the left, like civic totalism, which also need to be addressed. they then hopefully argue that a liberal democracy provides the best opportunity for Christians to love their neighbor.
April 21, 2024
Excellent introduction for most readers on combining Wright and Bird’s view of the “powers” with Christian interaction in the public square. A lot of meat in a shorter work, it will likely still be a good read a decade, possibly two from now.
Read
June 12, 2025Very solid book!! Being released a little over a year ago means you get to hear them cover hot button topics still relevant today, big fan of that
June 2, 2024
A very roundabout way of saying (and not saying) "We don't like Trump (nor progressive wackos)." Knowing NT's material on "the Powers," I expected a bit more about the principalities in the cosmic realm. The best part of this book was the well thought out sense of Christian duty in politics, and all the quotes.
April 23, 2024
In Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies, New Testament scholars N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird take on two major tasks: 1. to summarize the biblical data about political power and its spiritual components, and 2. to lay out a practical theology to guide Christians in making decisions about how to interact with the political sphere.
From a libertarian Christian vantagepoint, there is much to commend in this book. For one, as exceptional New Testament scholars, Wright and Bird pick up on many of the biblical emphases on justice and for being led by a concern for the least of these. In addition, as proponents of the western tradition of liberal democracy, many of their political values overlap with libertarian ones. Indeed, the classical liberal tradition paved the way for its more consistent formulation in libertarianism.
However, there are also significant flaws in the book which deserve our attention.
What are the Powers?
In the New Testament, powers and principalities (Gk. arche and exousia) are terms used, often in tandem, to refer to rulers over geographical regions. These terms are applied to earthly powers, to spiritual forces, and sometimes perhaps both. In Luke 12:11 and Titus 3:1, they describe earthly political forces. In Ephesians 3:10, they refer to the spiritual forces “in the heavenly places” to whom the “wisdom of God might now be made known through the church” (NASB). However, most of the other New Testament uses of these terms fall into something of a gray area. Will Christ abolish all spiritual or earthly powers and principalities at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15:24)? Is He now seated "in the heavenly places above all” spiritual or earthly “powers and principalities" (Ephesians 1:21)? Is Christ the head and creator of all powers and principalities in heaven or on the earth (Colossians 1:16, 2:10)? And most importantly for our subject, did Christ’s crucifixion disarm the earthly or spiritual powers and principalities (Colossians 2:15)?
How one answers these questions will have a significant impact upon how they answer questions down the line. This is especially important when it comes to passages that speak of the defeat or reconciliation of the powers. Wright and Bird make Paul’s discussion of the powers in Colossians perhaps the centerpiece of their biblical theology of the powers. In this epistle, Paul says that by Christ “all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him” (1:16, NASB) and that through His incarnation and crucifixion, “all things” have been “reconcile[d]” to Him–”whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross” (1:20, NASB).
But this raises two difficulties. First of all, is Paul referring to the demonic spiritual forces that rule over political systems behind the curtains or to the human political systems themselves? If he means the demonic forces, are we to understand that these spiritual beings are now working on behalf of God instead of against Him? Is Paul teaching a form of present universal salvation that extends even to rebellious angelic beings? If the latter, then shouldn’t we expect the political orders of all places and times post-crucifixion to be far more friendly to Christians, even christocentric in their orientation?
The second difficulty is one of timing. Paul speaks of Jesus reconciling all things to Himself, but to what extent is that true in the present? Has the cross totally reconciled all things right now, or only partially? If totally, then why would Paul write to Christians decades after Jesus’ crucifixion that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12, NASB)?
In a recent interview with Doug Stuart on the Libertarian Christian Podcast, Bird clarified his definition of the powers in this way:
“[They are entities that] inhabit that realm between the heavenlies and the echelons of political power. So you can’t simply immanentize it [and say] that it merely means the political apparatus… But neither can it be spiritualized into angels, demons, and rebellious spirits. It’s the whole constellation of those things–how they’re in cahoots with each other, how the political forces are merely puppets often for the dark powers of our times and the kind of coalition between them.”
The Powers from a Biblical Perspective
Bird and Wright conclude that this constellation between demons and political forces, “the structures of governance, the tendons and ligaments of complex human society, are in principle [now] reconciled.” In short, they are optimistic that, because of Christ’s defeat of the powers on the cross, Christians can now feel quite comfortable participating in and even over the political system where they live (does this imply that God was not sovereign over political forces and spiritual powers before the cross?). One might term Wright and Bird’s view of the evil nature of the powers the "subjective" view because they write that "once [the powers] stop being worshiped they stop being demonic."
However, there are two insurmountable biblical problems with this conclusion.
The first is that the powers are still in operation and are still opposed to God. This is abundantly clear throughout the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Paul writes that at the end, Jesus will deliver “the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority [archen] and power [exousian].” In other words, the full reconciliation of the powers will not take place until the final judgment–and it will be accomplished by their destruction. The cross began this process, but it did conclude it.
This is context with the book of Revelation, potentially the latest written book of the New Testament, where Satan is still presented as behind political authority even after the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Revelation 12:5 to Revelation 13:1 and Luke 4:6). Where Bird and Wright take the subjective view of the wickedness of the powers, Revelation seems to present a more objective view–the dragon summons the beast of civil government and causes it to resemble him (cf. Revelation 13:1, 4; 12:3).
In other words, the reports of the reconciliation of the powers have been greatly exaggerated by Wright and Bird.
Secondly, even if political power were not still inextricably tangled up with satanic power, its chief tool–violence–is unacceptable for Christians to utilize. Libertarian Christians have held different views about the appropriateness of violence, but even at the most permissive extreme, the initiation of force against peaceful people (taxation, fining and jailing nonviolent “offenders,” the maintenance of the military industrial complex, etc.) would all be morally verboten. This is because libertarianism represents the most basic ethical requirement of natural law, often called the silver rule: do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. Libertarians call this the Non-Aggression Principle–it is wrong to initiate violence against peaceful people. Libertarian Christians add to the Non-Aggression Principle the biblical notion that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, therefore His servants do not go to war like the soldiers of earthly kingdoms (John 18:36). Christians who take fairly literally the commands of Jesus to turn the other cheek when struck, love one’s enemies, and always return good for the evil that’s done to you would go even further than the NAP into some form of pacifism.
The political ethic promoted by Bird and Wright meets neither the biblical nor the baseline silver rule ethic of libertarianism. It is historically Christian, however, in the sense that it’s consistent with post-Constantinian Christendom (though softened by Bird and Wright’s broad acceptance of enlightenment liberalism).
Peter proclaims a concept similar to Paul’s idea of the reconciliation of the powers, writing that Jesus “is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him” (1 Peter 3:22, NASB). Nevertheless, in this very same letter Peter also calls Christians “exiles,” (1:1) and “foreigners and strangers” (2:11) in the world in which they inhabit. He also places a divide between Christians and human political institutions (1:13), charging Jesus followers to remember that they are technically free from these authorities but should choose to make peace with them whenever possible through obedience in order to silence outside criticism (2:15-16). Finally, he exhorts Christians who are abused by those in authority to “not insult in return” and “not threaten” but follow the example of Jesus who “entrust[ed] Himself to Him who judges righteously” (2:23). In short, Peter sees Christians as still living in a hostile world marked by violence that we must practice thoughtful and nonviolent separation from, awaiting the final fulfillment of Jesus’ subjection of the powers to Himself. Bird and Wright actually speak to this Christian value of nonviolence with great moral clarity, but only in the context of their opposition to violent social revolution: “even to consider the prospect of violence as permissible or divinely sanctioned enters into a morally fraught space.”
On the other hand, Peter also speaks of the practical benefits of human political institutions–when they work properly they punish those who do evil and enable those who do good. These benefits are not lost on Wright and Bird, who make this function the centerpiece of their argument that the state serves the purposes of God. Some of the biblical support which they marshall for these arguments are fairly uncontroversial. For instance, the Old Testament prophets wrote of God’s use of the empires of Babylon and Assyria to punish wayward Judah and Israel (see Isaiah 10:5-19 and 2 Kings 24:2).
Other passages they cite are of more questionable support to their position. For instance, much is made of John 19:11 where Jesus told Pilate “You would have no authority over Me at all, if it had not been given to you from above; for this reason the one [singular] who handed Me over to you has the greater sin” (NASB). Bird and Wright conclude from this that, “Jesus, the Word incarnate, the Son of Man, the Messiah, acknowledges that the pagan governor Pontius Pilate has a God-given authority over him… Of course, Jesus adds a vital rider. Those to whom authority and responsibility are given will be held accountable…”
There are at least three problems with this interpretation:
Jesus’ primary point is not that Pilate will be held accountable, but that he will be held to much less account than the one who turned Jesus over to him. This raises another question.
Who is the one who will primarily be held to account? In Wright and Bird’s reading, “it will be blamed on those mainly responsible, in other words (we assume) the chief priests who have presented Pilate with a strange prisoner and an even stranger set of charges against him.” But were the chief priests not also appointed by God? In short, their interpretation implies an antisemitic conclusion–the Jews are more to blame than the Romans even though both of their leaders were appointed by God.
Wright and Bird assume that the one who gave Pilate his authority is different from the one (and remember that this is a singular verbal form) who handed Jesus over to him. But since there is manifold witness throughout the Bible that corrupt spiritual powers pull the strings behind political authorities, why not conclude that the power from above who gave Pilate his power is the same one who gave Jesus over to him–the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2)?
But even if we take their interpretation as broadly correct–that indeed God is ultimately in authority even though Satan is not without influence–this would not necessarily lead us to seeing participating in the violence of the state as a worthy Christian calling. Another of their major prooftexts–Romans 13–presents the Roman magistrate as an [unknowing] servant of God who avenges against evildoers. However, this follows Romans 12, which commands Christians to leave all vengeance to God, choosing to forsake violence and live peaceably with all men...
(this is an excerpt from a longer review that was also featured as an article at www.libertarianchristians.com)
From a libertarian Christian vantagepoint, there is much to commend in this book. For one, as exceptional New Testament scholars, Wright and Bird pick up on many of the biblical emphases on justice and for being led by a concern for the least of these. In addition, as proponents of the western tradition of liberal democracy, many of their political values overlap with libertarian ones. Indeed, the classical liberal tradition paved the way for its more consistent formulation in libertarianism.
However, there are also significant flaws in the book which deserve our attention.
What are the Powers?
In the New Testament, powers and principalities (Gk. arche and exousia) are terms used, often in tandem, to refer to rulers over geographical regions. These terms are applied to earthly powers, to spiritual forces, and sometimes perhaps both. In Luke 12:11 and Titus 3:1, they describe earthly political forces. In Ephesians 3:10, they refer to the spiritual forces “in the heavenly places” to whom the “wisdom of God might now be made known through the church” (NASB). However, most of the other New Testament uses of these terms fall into something of a gray area. Will Christ abolish all spiritual or earthly powers and principalities at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15:24)? Is He now seated "in the heavenly places above all” spiritual or earthly “powers and principalities" (Ephesians 1:21)? Is Christ the head and creator of all powers and principalities in heaven or on the earth (Colossians 1:16, 2:10)? And most importantly for our subject, did Christ’s crucifixion disarm the earthly or spiritual powers and principalities (Colossians 2:15)?
How one answers these questions will have a significant impact upon how they answer questions down the line. This is especially important when it comes to passages that speak of the defeat or reconciliation of the powers. Wright and Bird make Paul’s discussion of the powers in Colossians perhaps the centerpiece of their biblical theology of the powers. In this epistle, Paul says that by Christ “all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him” (1:16, NASB) and that through His incarnation and crucifixion, “all things” have been “reconcile[d]” to Him–”whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross” (1:20, NASB).
But this raises two difficulties. First of all, is Paul referring to the demonic spiritual forces that rule over political systems behind the curtains or to the human political systems themselves? If he means the demonic forces, are we to understand that these spiritual beings are now working on behalf of God instead of against Him? Is Paul teaching a form of present universal salvation that extends even to rebellious angelic beings? If the latter, then shouldn’t we expect the political orders of all places and times post-crucifixion to be far more friendly to Christians, even christocentric in their orientation?
The second difficulty is one of timing. Paul speaks of Jesus reconciling all things to Himself, but to what extent is that true in the present? Has the cross totally reconciled all things right now, or only partially? If totally, then why would Paul write to Christians decades after Jesus’ crucifixion that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12, NASB)?
In a recent interview with Doug Stuart on the Libertarian Christian Podcast, Bird clarified his definition of the powers in this way:
“[They are entities that] inhabit that realm between the heavenlies and the echelons of political power. So you can’t simply immanentize it [and say] that it merely means the political apparatus… But neither can it be spiritualized into angels, demons, and rebellious spirits. It’s the whole constellation of those things–how they’re in cahoots with each other, how the political forces are merely puppets often for the dark powers of our times and the kind of coalition between them.”
The Powers from a Biblical Perspective
Bird and Wright conclude that this constellation between demons and political forces, “the structures of governance, the tendons and ligaments of complex human society, are in principle [now] reconciled.” In short, they are optimistic that, because of Christ’s defeat of the powers on the cross, Christians can now feel quite comfortable participating in and even over the political system where they live (does this imply that God was not sovereign over political forces and spiritual powers before the cross?). One might term Wright and Bird’s view of the evil nature of the powers the "subjective" view because they write that "once [the powers] stop being worshiped they stop being demonic."
However, there are two insurmountable biblical problems with this conclusion.
The first is that the powers are still in operation and are still opposed to God. This is abundantly clear throughout the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Paul writes that at the end, Jesus will deliver “the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority [archen] and power [exousian].” In other words, the full reconciliation of the powers will not take place until the final judgment–and it will be accomplished by their destruction. The cross began this process, but it did conclude it.
This is context with the book of Revelation, potentially the latest written book of the New Testament, where Satan is still presented as behind political authority even after the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Revelation 12:5 to Revelation 13:1 and Luke 4:6). Where Bird and Wright take the subjective view of the wickedness of the powers, Revelation seems to present a more objective view–the dragon summons the beast of civil government and causes it to resemble him (cf. Revelation 13:1, 4; 12:3).
In other words, the reports of the reconciliation of the powers have been greatly exaggerated by Wright and Bird.
Secondly, even if political power were not still inextricably tangled up with satanic power, its chief tool–violence–is unacceptable for Christians to utilize. Libertarian Christians have held different views about the appropriateness of violence, but even at the most permissive extreme, the initiation of force against peaceful people (taxation, fining and jailing nonviolent “offenders,” the maintenance of the military industrial complex, etc.) would all be morally verboten. This is because libertarianism represents the most basic ethical requirement of natural law, often called the silver rule: do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. Libertarians call this the Non-Aggression Principle–it is wrong to initiate violence against peaceful people. Libertarian Christians add to the Non-Aggression Principle the biblical notion that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, therefore His servants do not go to war like the soldiers of earthly kingdoms (John 18:36). Christians who take fairly literally the commands of Jesus to turn the other cheek when struck, love one’s enemies, and always return good for the evil that’s done to you would go even further than the NAP into some form of pacifism.
The political ethic promoted by Bird and Wright meets neither the biblical nor the baseline silver rule ethic of libertarianism. It is historically Christian, however, in the sense that it’s consistent with post-Constantinian Christendom (though softened by Bird and Wright’s broad acceptance of enlightenment liberalism).
Peter proclaims a concept similar to Paul’s idea of the reconciliation of the powers, writing that Jesus “is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him” (1 Peter 3:22, NASB). Nevertheless, in this very same letter Peter also calls Christians “exiles,” (1:1) and “foreigners and strangers” (2:11) in the world in which they inhabit. He also places a divide between Christians and human political institutions (1:13), charging Jesus followers to remember that they are technically free from these authorities but should choose to make peace with them whenever possible through obedience in order to silence outside criticism (2:15-16). Finally, he exhorts Christians who are abused by those in authority to “not insult in return” and “not threaten” but follow the example of Jesus who “entrust[ed] Himself to Him who judges righteously” (2:23). In short, Peter sees Christians as still living in a hostile world marked by violence that we must practice thoughtful and nonviolent separation from, awaiting the final fulfillment of Jesus’ subjection of the powers to Himself. Bird and Wright actually speak to this Christian value of nonviolence with great moral clarity, but only in the context of their opposition to violent social revolution: “even to consider the prospect of violence as permissible or divinely sanctioned enters into a morally fraught space.”
On the other hand, Peter also speaks of the practical benefits of human political institutions–when they work properly they punish those who do evil and enable those who do good. These benefits are not lost on Wright and Bird, who make this function the centerpiece of their argument that the state serves the purposes of God. Some of the biblical support which they marshall for these arguments are fairly uncontroversial. For instance, the Old Testament prophets wrote of God’s use of the empires of Babylon and Assyria to punish wayward Judah and Israel (see Isaiah 10:5-19 and 2 Kings 24:2).
Other passages they cite are of more questionable support to their position. For instance, much is made of John 19:11 where Jesus told Pilate “You would have no authority over Me at all, if it had not been given to you from above; for this reason the one [singular] who handed Me over to you has the greater sin” (NASB). Bird and Wright conclude from this that, “Jesus, the Word incarnate, the Son of Man, the Messiah, acknowledges that the pagan governor Pontius Pilate has a God-given authority over him… Of course, Jesus adds a vital rider. Those to whom authority and responsibility are given will be held accountable…”
There are at least three problems with this interpretation:
Jesus’ primary point is not that Pilate will be held accountable, but that he will be held to much less account than the one who turned Jesus over to him. This raises another question.
Who is the one who will primarily be held to account? In Wright and Bird’s reading, “it will be blamed on those mainly responsible, in other words (we assume) the chief priests who have presented Pilate with a strange prisoner and an even stranger set of charges against him.” But were the chief priests not also appointed by God? In short, their interpretation implies an antisemitic conclusion–the Jews are more to blame than the Romans even though both of their leaders were appointed by God.
Wright and Bird assume that the one who gave Pilate his authority is different from the one (and remember that this is a singular verbal form) who handed Jesus over to him. But since there is manifold witness throughout the Bible that corrupt spiritual powers pull the strings behind political authorities, why not conclude that the power from above who gave Pilate his power is the same one who gave Jesus over to him–the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2)?
But even if we take their interpretation as broadly correct–that indeed God is ultimately in authority even though Satan is not without influence–this would not necessarily lead us to seeing participating in the violence of the state as a worthy Christian calling. Another of their major prooftexts–Romans 13–presents the Roman magistrate as an [unknowing] servant of God who avenges against evildoers. However, this follows Romans 12, which commands Christians to leave all vengeance to God, choosing to forsake violence and live peaceably with all men...
(this is an excerpt from a longer review that was also featured as an article at www.libertarianchristians.com)
December 18, 2024
Educational for me. Appreciate the authors writing it. Middle was a bit hard to get through.
February 2, 2025
Really enjoyed this book along with reading both NT Wright and Michael Bird.
4 or 4.5 not quite sure, only down side is that there were a couple of times where it was a little wordy and got bogged down a tad.
My favorite quote in the whole book and there were alot of good ones.
Its a long one but so good.
We are not oiling the wheels of a machine that’s about to fall over a cliff. We are not restoring a great painting that’s shortly going to be thrown on to the fire. We are not planting roses in a garden that’s about to be dug up for a building site. We are–strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself–accomplishing something which will become, in due course, part of God’s new world. If that is true, then, every act of love, gratitude and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely disabled child to read or to walk; every act of care for a dying patient; every deed of comfort and support for refugees; everything done for one’s fellow human beings; everything to preserve and beautify the created order; all spirit-led teaching, every deed that spreads the gospel, builds up the Church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, every prayer for the heart’s longings, and the worship that makes the name of Jesus honoured in the world–all of this will find its way, through the resurrecting power of God, into the new creation that God will one day make. That is the logic of the mission of God. God’s recreation of his wonderful world, which has begun with the resurrection of Jesus, continues mysteriously as God’s people live in the risen Christ and in the power of his spirit. This means that what we do in Christ and by the spirit in the present is not wasted, not abandoned, not discarded. Our holy labours will last long, all the way into God’s new world. In fact, they will even be enhanced there. We have no idea what precisely this will mean in practice. We are putting up a signpost, not offering a photograph of what we will find when we get to where the signpost is pointing.
4 or 4.5 not quite sure, only down side is that there were a couple of times where it was a little wordy and got bogged down a tad.
My favorite quote in the whole book and there were alot of good ones.
Its a long one but so good.
We are not oiling the wheels of a machine that’s about to fall over a cliff. We are not restoring a great painting that’s shortly going to be thrown on to the fire. We are not planting roses in a garden that’s about to be dug up for a building site. We are–strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself–accomplishing something which will become, in due course, part of God’s new world. If that is true, then, every act of love, gratitude and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely disabled child to read or to walk; every act of care for a dying patient; every deed of comfort and support for refugees; everything done for one’s fellow human beings; everything to preserve and beautify the created order; all spirit-led teaching, every deed that spreads the gospel, builds up the Church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, every prayer for the heart’s longings, and the worship that makes the name of Jesus honoured in the world–all of this will find its way, through the resurrecting power of God, into the new creation that God will one day make. That is the logic of the mission of God. God’s recreation of his wonderful world, which has begun with the resurrection of Jesus, continues mysteriously as God’s people live in the risen Christ and in the power of his spirit. This means that what we do in Christ and by the spirit in the present is not wasted, not abandoned, not discarded. Our holy labours will last long, all the way into God’s new world. In fact, they will even be enhanced there. We have no idea what precisely this will mean in practice. We are putting up a signpost, not offering a photograph of what we will find when we get to where the signpost is pointing.
August 18, 2025
The lack of stance in this book was fairly frustrating along with any concrete steps for the Christian to take in politics. The book touched on many interesting subjects but failed to go deeper in any which resulted in a superficial piece of work. Liberal democracy was held as the political standard without much criticism (despite its problems seen today which make the authors come across as fairly naive) and any other political system alternatives were not steel-manned.
I was unimpressed with the all-over-the-place writing style and explicit biases embedded all throughout. In the end I ask myself who can I recommend this book to? Not to the knowledgeable for the lack of in-depth analysis and not for the novice for the lack of direction/clarity for the Christian in the realm of politics/religion.
I was unimpressed with the all-over-the-place writing style and explicit biases embedded all throughout. In the end I ask myself who can I recommend this book to? Not to the knowledgeable for the lack of in-depth analysis and not for the novice for the lack of direction/clarity for the Christian in the realm of politics/religion.
May 30, 2025
While the thesis of the book stands, the way the authors express and support their points is at best repetitive and whinging, and at worst wildly ignorant and western-obsessed. I got whiplash from this book, flip-flopping between paragraphs of solid points about how Christians are to engage (or how not to engage) with the political sphere, and then suddenly jerked into a multi-page rant about the "evils" of communism and demonization of non-democratic countries (i.e. authors seem unable to separate "communism as an ideological pushback against capitalism" from "the authoritarian regimes that arose from an attempt to institute communism"). They are also desperate to attribute all good things in the world to Western Christianity - and this concerns me not only because of its narrow-minded view but also because it gives the credit to the faith as instituted by the people rather than God Himself. As the book went on, I found it increasingly lacking in true biblical grounding and more the rantings of 2 men who just want to share their opinions.
April 23, 2024
I really like Wright and “The Day the Revolution Began” is one of my favorites. But I just wasn’t a fan of this. Three stars may be more fair, as I have strong opinions in this particular category, but I just thought the book was weak. I agree with what they said about the kingdom and about not being polarized politically, but then it felt like they totally neutered the what the conclusion ought to be. It just fell very flat and seemed to lack real application.
March 31, 2024
This is not a very good book. I need to write a longer review. Frankly, I expected more out of Tom Wright. I am deeply disappointed in this effort. Deeply. The authors are too centrist and I simply cannot see that working in today's climate. I have more to say, but I want to think on this for a day or two.
January 31, 2025
5 stars for presenting information in a clear, well formed argument, that made me consider the information given.
The authors argue that because Jesus cannot be viewed apart from a backdrop of the empire, that politics matter and Christians should actively engage in them.
“Christianity cannot be understood apart from the empire. We cannot understand the Bible without knowing something about the struggles of survival of the Hebrew people under the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. Christianity began in the Roman Empire, in which Jesus and the early disciples lived as colonized peoples. Jesus died on the cross, which was a symbol of state terrorism and a form of torture and punishment for political rebels.” - quote by Kuok Pui-lan that was used in the book
A large final chunk of the book was then spent in argument that a true liberal democracy is something worth fighting for because
“We do not regard liberal democracy as uniquely christian; neither is it perfect, infallible, or beyond criticism. But liberal democracy and confident pluralism constitute a form of government and political philosophy that gives us the best opportunity to love god and to love our neighbor.”
The authors also explain the dangers of both christian nationalism, and civic totalists, which is very relevant today, and especially in light of those two “dangers” why one should prefer a liberal democracy.
I can say I went from not really understanding why Christians push for “protecting our freedoms” so much, which at times feels anti-christian to me, to actually understanding the value here if done well. The problem I feel is that this push lends itself to christian nationalism too easily. It is important to remember that, “in a healthy liberal democracy, christian voices will not be stymied, but neither will non-christian voices be censored.”
The authors argue that because Jesus cannot be viewed apart from a backdrop of the empire, that politics matter and Christians should actively engage in them.
“Christianity cannot be understood apart from the empire. We cannot understand the Bible without knowing something about the struggles of survival of the Hebrew people under the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. Christianity began in the Roman Empire, in which Jesus and the early disciples lived as colonized peoples. Jesus died on the cross, which was a symbol of state terrorism and a form of torture and punishment for political rebels.” - quote by Kuok Pui-lan that was used in the book
A large final chunk of the book was then spent in argument that a true liberal democracy is something worth fighting for because
“We do not regard liberal democracy as uniquely christian; neither is it perfect, infallible, or beyond criticism. But liberal democracy and confident pluralism constitute a form of government and political philosophy that gives us the best opportunity to love god and to love our neighbor.”
The authors also explain the dangers of both christian nationalism, and civic totalists, which is very relevant today, and especially in light of those two “dangers” why one should prefer a liberal democracy.
I can say I went from not really understanding why Christians push for “protecting our freedoms” so much, which at times feels anti-christian to me, to actually understanding the value here if done well. The problem I feel is that this push lends itself to christian nationalism too easily. It is important to remember that, “in a healthy liberal democracy, christian voices will not be stymied, but neither will non-christian voices be censored.”
August 16, 2024
Wright and Bird provide us with a good introduction to political theology, and just in time for election season. How Christians participate in politics, develop political convictions, live with those with whom they disagree, suffer political persecution, and engage in civil disobedience are some of the themes addressed. They remind us that government is instrumental, but not ultimate; that God ordains government, but not every governor. The authors make a case for liberal democracy while recognizing that it requires certain cultural values that don't necessarily exist in all cultures. They point us to sacrifice and service as the primary ways disciples of Jesus change the world. There is a distinctively Christian way of obtaining and handling power. While Christians don't build the Kingdom of God, they can build for the Kingdom. Service for the flourishing of all - and all creation - is the mandate given to Christians. They describe the book thus:
Jesus and the Powers has one objective: to say that, in an age of ascending autocracies, in a time of fear and fragmentation, amid carnage and crises, Jesus is King, and Jesus’ kingdom remains the object of the Church’s witness and work.
By their own admission, this is an introduction and doesn't cover everything. Additionally, the biblical concept of "principalities and powers" is far from clear, and it consists of various shades of meaning. Diving deeper into the theology of powers may be beyond the scope of the book, but is necessary ground work.
I listened to the audio book, so I don't have more detailed notes or highlights. I think a book discussion in an adult Sunday School class or small group could help Christians develop political convictions as disciples of Jesus and learn to manage strong emotions and divisive tendencies experienced during election seasons. Though there's always a danger in discussing politics in the church, political strongholds are powerful forces keeping individuals and churches from distinctively Christian maturity and mission. It's time for these demons to be exercised.
Jesus and the Powers has one objective: to say that, in an age of ascending autocracies, in a time of fear and fragmentation, amid carnage and crises, Jesus is King, and Jesus’ kingdom remains the object of the Church’s witness and work.
By their own admission, this is an introduction and doesn't cover everything. Additionally, the biblical concept of "principalities and powers" is far from clear, and it consists of various shades of meaning. Diving deeper into the theology of powers may be beyond the scope of the book, but is necessary ground work.
I listened to the audio book, so I don't have more detailed notes or highlights. I think a book discussion in an adult Sunday School class or small group could help Christians develop political convictions as disciples of Jesus and learn to manage strong emotions and divisive tendencies experienced during election seasons. Though there's always a danger in discussing politics in the church, political strongholds are powerful forces keeping individuals and churches from distinctively Christian maturity and mission. It's time for these demons to be exercised.
November 14, 2024
Very helpful and thought provoking
A very helpful resource for folks looking for help thinking through how the Christian faith can engage in the public square. This is not a definitive resource on political theology, but a conversation partner. The authors walks through biblical history, looking at the way God’s people have engaged with political power. They look at how Jesus engaged with both Jewish and Roman power. And they look at how the Church has existed in a variety of government contexts over the past 2,000 years. Then they think through what types and aspects of government embody more and less Christian ideals and what kinds of governments Christians should actively resist. I wish it was a little more clear at times, but I think that is a result of trying to keep the book short and accessible to more readers.
A very helpful resource for folks looking for help thinking through how the Christian faith can engage in the public square. This is not a definitive resource on political theology, but a conversation partner. The authors walks through biblical history, looking at the way God’s people have engaged with political power. They look at how Jesus engaged with both Jewish and Roman power. And they look at how the Church has existed in a variety of government contexts over the past 2,000 years. Then they think through what types and aspects of government embody more and less Christian ideals and what kinds of governments Christians should actively resist. I wish it was a little more clear at times, but I think that is a result of trying to keep the book short and accessible to more readers.
September 17, 2025
This was a challenging read. In this book there is an open and honest discussion about the relationship between Christians and the power of the world in a way that felt very thorough. Although I didn't agree with every conclusion, I really enjoyed the call to engage with the world we live in and not retreat from it like it doesn't matter. I also liked the idea of the Church acting as a witness to the authorities in the world rather than trying to take power from the authorities to establish an earthly kingdom. Overall this was a good, thought-provoking book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 182 reviews