Loving our neighbor
Jesus and the Powers by Tom Wright and Michael F. Bird was not at all what I expected but was a delight to read. Readers journey through the history of God’s people who have nearly always lived under or at least nearby imperial rulers and then dive into the Biblical mandate to bear public witness to and build for God’s Kingdom. Wright and Bird round out their arguments by laying out a case for “liberal democracy and an ethos of confident pluralism.”[1]
Wright and Bird’s arguments recalled several authors we’ve previously read. The discussion of communism as “simultaneously too Christian and not Christian enough”[2] reminded me of Karl Polyani’s analysis.[3] The chapter on submission and subversion[4] dovetailed with Mark Livecchi’s perspective on Just War and the role of faith in armed conflict.[5] Most of all, Wright and Bird’s assertion that a liberal democracy “must be rooted in some kind of consensus…about the nature of justice or a shared understanding of the common good”[6] had me re-reading several of our cohort’s blogs about Fukuyama and Identity Politics.[7]
This book even reflects some of what Jim Wallis, whom we will meet in Washington D.C., discussed when he talked about the church’s role as a prophetic voice and a Kingdom vision of politics that prioritizes the flourishing of all people.[8] But what’s the point of mentioning this diverse collection of thinkers? I aim to show that Jesus and the Powers goes deep and wide, covering the topic thoroughly and deeply. That said, the bit that caught my attention was the juxtaposition of Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor and the concept of “confident pluralism” as the authors name it.
In the context of explaining a Christian justification for liberalism, Wright and Bird say, “In order to love our neighbour, we must allow our neighbour to be beside us and yet be different from us. Our neighbour has permission to be ‘other’ than us.”[9] This is an interesting take on the parable of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10:25-37. I appreciate its modern sensibility. Most of us are unlikely to stumble upon someone who has been attacked and left for dead by the side of the road, as the Samaritan was in the original story. But you might, like me, live or work side-by-side with people who embrace an ideology that, given our current social climate, makes loving them rather difficult. I needed to hear this challenge from Wright and Bird: “That requires us permitting and even celebrating the freedom of others to find happiness, fulfilment, flourishing, purpose and meaning in ways that we might disagree with or disapprove of.”[10]
As with many aspects of the Christian faith, there is a tension here. Wright and Bird are not saying that we should not discuss these differences, like giving in to a form of self-cancelling. To the contrary, a cornerstone of the authors’ argument is that Christians have a prophetic role to speak truth and stand up for justice.[11] Rather, confident pluralism means “that people have a right to be different, to think differently, to live differently, to worship differently, without fear of reprisal.”[12]
There is a second tension that must be addressed here. Wright and Bird do not neglect to say there are some reasonable limits to pluralism, and it is a liberal democracy’s task to sort those out. The examples they give as not-to-be-tolerated diversity include female genital mutilation, polygamy and racial discrimination.[13] Despite these (and probably other) tensions inherent in the conversation, the authors argue that liberal democracy and the concept of confident pluralism offers “the best opportunity to love God and to love our neighbour.”[14] As I reflect on my contribution to building for the Kingdom of God, I want to learn more about and lean into confident pluralism as a way to love my neighbor.
[1] Wright, N. T., and Michael F. Bird. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. London: SPCK Publishing, 2024. 178.
[2] Ibid., 127.
[3] Karl Polanyi. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2001).
[4] Wright, N. T., and Michael F. Bird. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. London: SPCK Publishing, 2024. 121.
[5] Marc LiVecche, The Good Kill: Just War and Moral Injury (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021)
[6] Wright, N. T., and Michael F. Bird. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. London: SPCK Publishing, 2024. 155.
[7] Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment.
[8] Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. New York: Harper San Francisco, 2008.Ch. 7.
[9] Wright, N. T., and Michael F. Bird. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. London: SPCK Publishing, 2024. 159.
[10] Ibid., 160.
[11] Ibid., 64.
[12] Ibid., 171.
[13] Ibid., 173.
[14] Ibid., 178.
About the Author
Kim Sanford
12 responses to “Loving our neighbor”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you, Kim, for such a thoughtful reflection. Your insights on Wright and Bird’s “confident pluralism” really resonated with me, especially the idea of loving our neighbors by embracing their differences. It’s a challenging but essential reminder of how we can contribute to God’s Kingdom in a diverse world. Appreciate your perspective!
PS I think the most Kim thing ever is this profile photo of you kind of like hiding half off-frame. Please never change. For sure continue to become a better version of yourself but you are an awesome human.
Haha, thank you Mathieu. What is maybe a little hard to see in my tiny profile photo is that it was taken in South Africa. Those are penguins in the background and I wanted to connect my DLGP blog to that memory.
Hello, Kim~
You wrote: There is a second tension that must be addressed here. Wright and Bird do not neglect to say there are some reasonable limits to pluralism, and it is a liberal democracy’s task to sort those out. The examples they give as not-to-be-tolerated diversity include female genital mutilation, polygamy and racial discrimination.[13]
Would you add any other examples to this list, especially in light of living in Europe for the past decade? Thanks for your clear and accessible post!
That’s a great question, Pam. My first thought is more a reflection of the current social/political climate. I would say there should be no allowance for disinformation of any kind. A bit idealistic, I know, to imagine making it illegal to lie, but imagine how it would change the world! In a similar vein, and this one does come from my years in Europe, I have no tolerance for the cruelty of selfish ambition that destroys the lives of others. Again, impossible to regulate, but in terms of massive destructive power and the potential to cause suffering, these two seem on par with what Wright mentions.
Kim, such a thoughtful post. I appreciated how you focused on confident pluralism and liberal democracy instead of trying to cover the entire book, though both run throughout the book. Anyway, I am curious, how do you, embrace the quote, “Our neighbour has permission to be ‘other’ than us,” as a missionary? You conclude with, “As I reflect on my contribution to building for the Kingdom of God, I want to learn more about and lean into confident pluralism as a way to love my neighbor.” I think this speaks to one of the many tensions in the Christian faith. How do we lean into confident pluralism while also sharing the gospel? If anyone can do it, you can!
Such a good question that I wrestle with all the time. What helps me is to weave together two thoughts and hold on tightly to them. First, I know what God has done in my life and I trust in his goodness and in his plan for humanity. That’s important because it keeps me from constantly calling into question my own values, despite them being different from those around me. Secondly, moving from a place of judginess toward my neighbor’s “otherness” to a place of compassion, because I genuinely believe that my neighbor’s life would be better, happier, more fulfilled, etc. if they would live according to God’s plan for humanity. Compassion because it makes me sad when they can’t or won’t consider the way of Christ as a viable alternative to their current values. But again, compassion and sadness allows me to stay in a place of loving my neighbor, whereas judginess shuts that down.
Kim, as aways a great review. I agree that the challenges that we encountered in this book were well reasoned and important. When you think of the challenge of celebrating the freedoms of those around us, what do you think are mindsets that might help us be successful in doing this? And, if you are comfortable sharing, why do you think it is so hard?
My honest answer to your question is pretty simple actually. As Ted Lasso says, Be curious, not judgemental. This is a mindset shift that I’ve seen happening among some groups of people, but certainly not all, and even then change comes slowly. But I do think it goes a long way toward facilitating confident pluralism.
Hi Kim,
Appreciate how you focused on loving our neighbor and confident pluralism. Quoting Wright and Bird’s definition of confident pluralism meaning “…that people have a right to be different, to think differently, to live differently, to worship differently, without fear of reprisal.” That is love n action. In French culture would you see that concept as being received well? Possible as a religious notion or a political one?
Great question, Jenny. Historically, French culture has been rather conformist, or at least non-conformism is acceptable but only in certain predefined ways (yes, it’s an counterintuitive as it sounds). But recently there has been more movement toward tolerance of diverse views in the public sphere. There’s even a political/sociological movement defending “the right to be different.” It’s been codified into law in several domains, and I’ve also seen it show up in the schools.
Hi, Kim,
Thank you for your well-written post. Confident pluralism is helpful in breaking down barriers between differences. As Pam mentioned in her post that accepting others where they are brings great freedom for a more authentic presence. I know the power of hospitality is a powerful front runner to sharing the gospel. How have you been able to build bridges to share the gospel and also extend full acceptance?
Esther, you hit on a very real tension that we live with all the time. How do we both allow others to be who they are and love them well, while also holding on to the fact that we have something (the gospel!) to offer? And the gospel is not just one more alternative in a sea of lifestyle choices, but actually the way to the best, most abundant life. The thing that has helped me (and I’m still working on it constantly) is to stop viewing the people around me as “projects” but as children of God. Obvious thing to say, I know, but I think it is a continual challenge for those in vocational ministry especially.