Review of 'The Lordship of Christ: Serving Our Savior All of the Time, in All of Life, with All of Our Heart' on 'GoodReads'
5 stars
A very good antidote to the strawman fallacy against dominionism. While not spousing theonomy as a political policy approach, it resets on its base the much wider discußion on the place of Jesus in the wider culture, and thus provides a saner fundament for not only political life but for all of Christian life in a secularised wold.
Unfortunately, much of its good potential effects are lost on even Christians committed to the Reformed faith, as the deeply ingrained aßumptions on a diminished place of the Church in the world and a correspondingly totalitarian role of the State make a fair reading difficult, if not impoßible; I would recommend (former) neoevangelicals a wider, previous reading of [[author:Francis A. Schaeffer]], [[author:Rousas John Rushdoony]], [[author:Jean-Marc Berthoud]] and perhaps [[author:Joseph Boot]]'s [[title:The Mission of God]] so they gain the literacy neceßary to get past the watchful dragons of the mind.
A minor irritant …
A very good antidote to the strawman fallacy against dominionism. While not spousing theonomy as a political policy approach, it resets on its base the much wider discußion on the place of Jesus in the wider culture, and thus provides a saner fundament for not only political life but for all of Christian life in a secularised wold.
Unfortunately, much of its good potential effects are lost on even Christians committed to the Reformed faith, as the deeply ingrained aßumptions on a diminished place of the Church in the world and a correspondingly totalitarian role of the State make a fair reading difficult, if not impoßible; I would recommend (former) neoevangelicals a wider, previous reading of [[author:Francis A. Schaeffer]], [[author:Rousas John Rushdoony]], [[author:Jean-Marc Berthoud]] and perhaps [[author:Joseph Boot]]'s [[title:The Mission of God]] so they gain the literacy neceßary to get past the watchful dragons of the mind.
A minor irritant is the author's tendency to quote himself and John Frame, his partner in his Kuyperian, van Tillian actualisation project, predominantly. While I do appreciated the uniqueneß of their contributions, a wider circle of references would do much to dispel a discomfort derived from a perhaps ill-founded suspicion of parochialism.