Very much appreciate your recommendations, thank you!
Can I suggest an alternative to Wright and Bird? "Principalities, Powers, and Allegiances: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview" by Will Ryan, Matt Mouzakis, Brian Zahnd.
The introduction by Zahnd is a masterpiece in the way it summarises how the kingdom of God interacts with earthly government (and you can read that for free in the sample on Amazon)
The key difference between Wright/Bird and Ryan/Mouzakis is the answer to the following question: can the principalities and powers be redeemed? So much turns on the answer to this question!
Wright thinks they can be. In fact, as an anglican bishop he has taken an oath of allegiance to the British Crown which would be a huge problem for him if that turns out to be an oath of allegiance to unredeemable hostile spiritual powers. He would have rendered to Ceasar what he should be giving solely to God: viz his allegiance.
Alas for Wright, Ryan/Mouzakis develop a compelling biblical line to demonstrate the the principalities and powers are implacably hostile to God and will be judged.
I'll quote a couple of experpts from Zahnd's introduction:
"If we look to the Early Church Fathers for guidance, we discover that the Ante-Nicene Fathers mostly had a shoulder-shrugging disinterest in the political machinations of the Roman Empire— it simply wasn’t the kingdom to which they had pledged their allegiance. They would pay their taxes and pray for the emperor and other political authorities as the New Testament exhorted them to do— perhaps regularly praying they would be granted reprieve from periodic persecutions— but they had no vision or aspiration for bishops becoming senators." (Wright was a member of the British House of Lords for the time he was Bishop of Durham)
"When the church aspires to harness political power for its own ends, it fails to realize that it is attempting to harness what Paul calls the rulers and authorities and cosmic powers of this present darkness for a redemptive end. Obviously this is a devil’s bargain that is fated for disaster. Modern Christians in particular often suffer from a stunning naiveté, not only regarding the corrupting nature of politics, but also regarding the reality of what Paul calls the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” that are associated with the principalities and powers that rule this fallen world. As John the Elder soberly observes, “the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.” When the church attempts to change the world through the apparatus of the state, it doesn’t so much change the world as it becomes the world— the fallen world in Christian guise. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will."
Just before reading the Ryan/Mouzakis book, I posted something on my own substack about the impossibility of a christianised polity and the massive opportunity cost that arises when the church takes the "devil's bargain" to become an agent of political change in the world. You are most welcome to take a look. https://tsg3142.substack.com/p/the-victory-of-jesus-christ?r=14nco7
Thank you for the recommendation! I hadn’t heard of Ryan and Mouzakis' book, but based on your summary, it’s definitely going on my list.
I wholeheartedly agree with the central concern: the state is not God’s primary means of transforming the world—the church is. The temptation to conflate the kingdom of God with political power is profoundly dangerous. When the church reaches for Caesar’s sword to do Christ’s work, it almost always ends up crucifying the wrong people.
I also appreciate your point about the redemptive status of the principalities and powers. Wright and Bird's Anglican commitments, especially given Wright’s role in the House of Lords, clearly shape their optimism about redeeming institutions. That context has implications that I wouldn't be comfortable applying wholesale to the American political system. Perhaps we have to be more cautious, and more resistant, in our own setting.
That said, I’m curious to see how Ryan and Mouzakis argue that political systems are unredeemable. It’s a bold claim, and one I'd want to sit with. There’s something compelling about the political disinterest of the early church. But was it disengagement born of apathy, but or of spiritual defiance?
Still, I wrestle with how to carry that posture into a context like ours, where Christians not only can speak into public life, but in some cases may be called to. It seems like we are better positioned to seek just and correct oppression (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8, etc.) Are they arguing for withdrawal from politics?
I don't think that seeking the church should seek political power for its own ends. But, I don't think Wright or Bird think so either. Their chapters on nationalism offer a strong argument against doing so.
Thanks for the conversation! I’m grateful for the challenge and the suggested reading.
What should be the relationship between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world? I think that there is plenty of material in the parables to get a good answer to that question - and the example of Christ interacting with Pilate is the masterclass.
However, the majority view of the church over many centuries has been clouded by what Zhand refers to as "the devil's bargain". If you attempt to achieve God's purposes through politics then you are using the levers of law and not the power of grace. The question of power is crucial. Divine power was evident in the time of the apostles but once the patristic church opted for the political/military power of the Empire with all the social and economic implications following from the Edict of Milan, the power of God became much less necessary. I suspect that nowadays we in the west are very limited in our experience of the power of God and clouded in our imagination about what he could do.
Definitely take a look at the podcast “Truth Over Tribe” if you haven’t already! I think you would appreciate their backlog of episodes.
Very much appreciate your recommendations, thank you!
Can I suggest an alternative to Wright and Bird? "Principalities, Powers, and Allegiances: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview" by Will Ryan, Matt Mouzakis, Brian Zahnd.
The introduction by Zahnd is a masterpiece in the way it summarises how the kingdom of God interacts with earthly government (and you can read that for free in the sample on Amazon)
The key difference between Wright/Bird and Ryan/Mouzakis is the answer to the following question: can the principalities and powers be redeemed? So much turns on the answer to this question!
Wright thinks they can be. In fact, as an anglican bishop he has taken an oath of allegiance to the British Crown which would be a huge problem for him if that turns out to be an oath of allegiance to unredeemable hostile spiritual powers. He would have rendered to Ceasar what he should be giving solely to God: viz his allegiance.
Alas for Wright, Ryan/Mouzakis develop a compelling biblical line to demonstrate the the principalities and powers are implacably hostile to God and will be judged.
I'll quote a couple of experpts from Zahnd's introduction:
"If we look to the Early Church Fathers for guidance, we discover that the Ante-Nicene Fathers mostly had a shoulder-shrugging disinterest in the political machinations of the Roman Empire— it simply wasn’t the kingdom to which they had pledged their allegiance. They would pay their taxes and pray for the emperor and other political authorities as the New Testament exhorted them to do— perhaps regularly praying they would be granted reprieve from periodic persecutions— but they had no vision or aspiration for bishops becoming senators." (Wright was a member of the British House of Lords for the time he was Bishop of Durham)
"When the church aspires to harness political power for its own ends, it fails to realize that it is attempting to harness what Paul calls the rulers and authorities and cosmic powers of this present darkness for a redemptive end. Obviously this is a devil’s bargain that is fated for disaster. Modern Christians in particular often suffer from a stunning naiveté, not only regarding the corrupting nature of politics, but also regarding the reality of what Paul calls the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” that are associated with the principalities and powers that rule this fallen world. As John the Elder soberly observes, “the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.” When the church attempts to change the world through the apparatus of the state, it doesn’t so much change the world as it becomes the world— the fallen world in Christian guise. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will."
Just before reading the Ryan/Mouzakis book, I posted something on my own substack about the impossibility of a christianised polity and the massive opportunity cost that arises when the church takes the "devil's bargain" to become an agent of political change in the world. You are most welcome to take a look. https://tsg3142.substack.com/p/the-victory-of-jesus-christ?r=14nco7
Thank you for the recommendation! I hadn’t heard of Ryan and Mouzakis' book, but based on your summary, it’s definitely going on my list.
I wholeheartedly agree with the central concern: the state is not God’s primary means of transforming the world—the church is. The temptation to conflate the kingdom of God with political power is profoundly dangerous. When the church reaches for Caesar’s sword to do Christ’s work, it almost always ends up crucifying the wrong people.
I also appreciate your point about the redemptive status of the principalities and powers. Wright and Bird's Anglican commitments, especially given Wright’s role in the House of Lords, clearly shape their optimism about redeeming institutions. That context has implications that I wouldn't be comfortable applying wholesale to the American political system. Perhaps we have to be more cautious, and more resistant, in our own setting.
That said, I’m curious to see how Ryan and Mouzakis argue that political systems are unredeemable. It’s a bold claim, and one I'd want to sit with. There’s something compelling about the political disinterest of the early church. But was it disengagement born of apathy, but or of spiritual defiance?
Still, I wrestle with how to carry that posture into a context like ours, where Christians not only can speak into public life, but in some cases may be called to. It seems like we are better positioned to seek just and correct oppression (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8, etc.) Are they arguing for withdrawal from politics?
I don't think that seeking the church should seek political power for its own ends. But, I don't think Wright or Bird think so either. Their chapters on nationalism offer a strong argument against doing so.
Thanks for the conversation! I’m grateful for the challenge and the suggested reading.
What should be the relationship between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world? I think that there is plenty of material in the parables to get a good answer to that question - and the example of Christ interacting with Pilate is the masterclass.
However, the majority view of the church over many centuries has been clouded by what Zhand refers to as "the devil's bargain". If you attempt to achieve God's purposes through politics then you are using the levers of law and not the power of grace. The question of power is crucial. Divine power was evident in the time of the apostles but once the patristic church opted for the political/military power of the Empire with all the social and economic implications following from the Edict of Milan, the power of God became much less necessary. I suspect that nowadays we in the west are very limited in our experience of the power of God and clouded in our imagination about what he could do.