"King of Kings" by James Baird. A Short Review

 

As a young believer I spent years in the rise of the Moral Majority, the culture wars, and political and social conservatism. I cut my teeth on R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, David Chilton, and others. I embraced much of Francis Schaeffer's material as I could get my mind around, and so much more. So, I was interested in reading this 110-page hardback "King of Kings: A Reformed Guide to Christian Politics" by James Baird, a pastor at Covenant Church (PCA) in Naples, Florida.

Well, it was an okay read. Though I would agree with the author on many points, the history is flat and bland, as if the founders of the nation overwhelmingly all meant the same thing. A monolithic view of the founders. There's no thoughtful reflection on how the founders had absorbed John Locke's view of 'religion' as a utilitarian good (use religion to promote the national wellbeing, not because one religion or the other is right). Much like the atheists who now call themselves 'cultural Christians.' Such as one finds in Benjamin Rush's letter on Education where he wants to promote Christianity, but many religions will work just fine, "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is the religion of JESUS CHRIST."

The author also seems to embrace an over realized eschatology that we can vote and legislate and politic the kingdom into supremacy, now, by our actions and works and steam and energy. It seems to me that this is a similar position as the social justice crowd, but he leans hard right instead of left (flip side of the same coin). This is clearest when he encourages readers to grasp for power, get power, reach for power. Hmmmm. That seems to fly in the face of Mark chapters 8 through 10, where Jesus' disciples are constantly grabbing for power, and can't embrace that the way of the Messiah is the way of the cross. 

Peter rebukes Jesus for talking about a cross, and Jesus says, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man" (8:33). Or in chapter 9, while our Lord is talking about the cross again, his disciples are bickering over who is the greatest in the kingdom. And our Lord must challenge them with, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (9:35). And then again, while talking about the cross once more, James and John come up wanting power, 'put me on your right hand in the kingdom and put him on your left hand!' And our Lord corrects them once more (10:42-44) pointing out that power-grabbing is not the kingdom way, and ending with some gospel good news, "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). 

The disciples' problem is well stated by David Garland in his commentary, where he is specifically commenting on James and John wanting seats of power. “The Zebedee brothers are not asking for the honor of being crucified with Jesus. What they really expect is a kingdom for themselves, where they can impose their own will on others. They hope to replace the self-serving oppressive power structure of the Romans with their own self-serving oppressive power structure. Nothing changes except the names of the rulers. Oppressive power gets recycled and new tyrants rise on the scene. The worldly ambitions to be at the top and to beat down others still rules” (David Garland, “The NIV Application Commentary,” 411). The disciples want a blade-swinging, blood-splattered Messiah now, with themselves riding to victory with him now. That message will sell books, get one applauded, create a ton of social media followers, but seems to walk away from Jesus.

To steal a concept from our Lutheran friends, the disciples (and I think this book) were more about the theology of glory than the theology of the cross. And that perspective can be a problem. It's a similar problem that the theologically liberal churches espouse. This is why William Willimon, while he was a Bishop in the United Methodist Church, warned them: “Unable to preach Christ and him crucified, we preach humanity and it improved” (William Willimon, Peculiar Speech, pg. 13). That happens on the left, and on the right.

There are a few other issues, such as conflating the descriptions of Scripture with the prescriptions of God, etc. It's an okay read but misses the mark in substantial ways and places.