Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies

Excellent insight into what the Bible really says about how and why Christians should be engaged in politics. Accessible, thorough, nuanced and practical wisdom.

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 PerspectiveBird 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 I wrote)

This is an excellent discourse on our current global political reality and how the Christian faith should intersect with that reality. Especially in an election year, this should be required reading for all Christians and anyone seeking to find a way to exercise faith in a seemingly broken system.

Wright and Byrd have hit it out of the ballpark. Some of us have been troubled at the direction the evangelical church seems to be headed. Phrases such as, “this election is a battle of good and evil” make for an interesting novel but in practice they close all discussion and peaceful dialogue. This is a call for levelheaded leadership and thoughtful political action verses knee jerk confrontation.

Wright and Bird give careful consideration to a christian's place in a political system. They examine many possibilities and compare them to biblical passages. They strive to be even-handed and realistic. If you're a Christian looking for insight into a complex and confusing political situation, you won't go wrong in reading this book.

This book is, at least in part, a commentary on Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. And, it is a great contribution to the discussion of how to apply these passages to Christian life in the 21st century; with a distinct emphasis on the application of these principles to life in the West (Europe, NA, and Anglo-centric), but also with many comments to life in the global south.A good collaboration by these two excellent New Testament scholars.

The most profound observation in the book is, "Governments need a separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, and laws legislated as if the party or person we fear the most will acquire the power to wield them." Unfortunately, the persons who most need to heed this advice will never read a book such as this and will miss the message to their detriment - and ours.The book did an excellent job of highlighting how the struggle for power between religion and government has persisted for millennia and well describes the current challenges, but it falls short thereafter."One needs to have a criteria for determining unjust laws, evaluating the performance of a government as a whole, considering the consequences of all options." This was an enticing statement, but the book failed to provide any useful guidance on how to make those evaluations. Further, other than some vague generalities (pp. 166-9) there was nothing on which to hang one's hat.

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.

A timely and provocative read for Christians who question the relevance and application of their faith for our post modern society.

It's not comprehensive but has lots of bibliography, so one can dive further on the subject. A must read for Christians in the west

The book arrived earlier than expected and was well-packaged, as per usual.I'm a Rarewaves UK return customer: this Seller has an impressive range of reasonably priced items, and my orders always arrive safely in Australia. Also, excellent customer service/communication. 5 Stars.

A good read in our time of global crisis.