STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world byJSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A
DEMOCRATIC IDEAL
E. ALBERT COOK
Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon
Many Christians are today ready to afl&rm that Christian-
ity stands for the Brotherhood of Man. For many centuries,
Christians when they "said their prayers" have been
accustomed to repeat the words "Thy Kingdom come"
ostensibly as expressing their great desire or one of their
great desires. In the preaching of Jesus, the "Kingdom of
God" was apparently the great central theme, and there is
in recent years a revival of interest in this phrase and of study
as to its meaning. And it is being largely used nowadays as a
term descriptive of the ideal state of society, in which the
Brotherhood of Man shall be realized. We have to consider
the question whether or to what extent the phrase " Kingdom
of God" and the ideas naturally associated with it may
suitably be used to indicate the religion of the Brotherhood
of Man or a religion through which the Brotherhood of Man
may be gradually established.
As a standard by which to test any forms or conceptions of
reUgion which may be considered as suitable to usher in and
maintain the brotherhood of man and the real democracy of
which it is, we have asserted, the necessary spirit, we must at
the start, set clearly before us the two absolute essentials of
such a real democracy. The first, we may call the principle
of individual responsibility. The second is the good will
motive. In a democracy every mature individual is to make
his decisions as to what it is right and wise for himself and
others to do, by the power of his own mind, in the light of such
knowledge and experience as he shall have gained for himself.
626
TEE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 627
There must be no outer compulsion of any sort upon him, as
to his decisions. You may, if you like, apply to him the
principle "the King can do no wrong," only that is to be
applied to his thoughts and decisions, not to his overt acts.
The concrete expression of this responsibihty is in his ballot,
and if this be kept in mind it will help to make the principle
clear — almost self-evident. Each citizen is to have the right
to vote as he thinks good, with no bribe, nor threat of any
sort of welfare or ill-fare to warp his decision. He must yield
in his actions to the plurahty of judgments as to what is good,
obeying the laws which he may often consider unwise. But
he must not be limited in any way in his right to form his
own opinion about those laws or policies under which he must
live for a time, and to express that opinion in an orderly, legal
way, doubtless in speech and press, but particularly in the
baUot.
It is to be recognized that the acceptance of this general
principle for one's self involves with logically absolute necessity
its extension to all others who will accept it and live by it.
That is, if I demand and accept the right to express my mind
and share in determining the government and laws under
which I live, unthreatened by any policeman or thug, with
no bribe to pull me and no economic penalty (except such as
would follow from the nature of the policy I advocate, itself)
to push me, then I must grant the same freedom to everyone
else who will accept it. This means that no power of soldier,
constable, or court, nor of actual or threatened strike, nor of
offered promotion, demotion, or dismissal may be used against
me or by me against some one else, to make him say, "Yes,"
when his mind says, "No," or to make him vote "No" when
his mind votes "Yes," so long as he and I are willing to abide
by the result, until we can secure its change by the same
democratic method in which it was determined. This is the
principle of the "universal, equal, secret suffrage" demanded
in democratic countries. As a theory of government it implies
(528 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
that, given the opportunity and responsibility, every man or,
at least the large majority of men, will in time come to see
what is wise and good in the matter of such human relations
as can be controlled or influenced by government, and that
society will be better oflF, altogether, when governed by the
wisdom which has been reached by a majority of its members,
than by that which has been reached by a smaller number,
who would therefore impose their will by force upon the
majority, since the majority did not consent to their will.
The second principle absolutely essential to successful
democratic government is the one to which we have already
given considerable attention, the principle of the good will
motive. Only when each citizen, each voter, therefore, each
ruler, seeks the welfare of all concerned, that is, today at least,
of all humanity, can there be any assurance that he will use
the power of the ballot, the power of his share in the govern-
ment in the interests of the governed. We have perhaps said
enough, for the present about this principle. It is of the first
importance that we keep in mind these two principles of
individual responsibihty and the good will motive, in judging
any form of reUgion as to its compatibility with or value to
democracy.
The Christian interest in the "Kingdom of God" dates,
naturally, from the first century of our era. The hope of the
Jews of the time of Jesus, was that the Roman yoke should be
thrown off, and that Palestine should become an independent,
prosperous, and glorious kingdom, with a glory similar to
but even greater than that which was reputed to have been
enjoyed under the reigns of David and Solomon. The hope
of such independence and prosperity was the most vital part
of the religion of the Jews at this time. It was by the power
of God that the foreign yoke was to be broken, and it was
his "Messiah" (Christ or Anointed One) who was to lead
the nation in its revolution and to rule it as the representative
of God.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 629
Needless to say, the theory and ideal of modern democracy
was unknown in Palestine in the first century. The consent
of all worthy Jews to the reign of the God-anointed king, in
the line of David, was, of course, assumed. But there was
no thought that the power by which the king should carry
on his government would be other than that of military and
police force, wherever there might be any objection to the
will of the ruler, except as supernatiu^al or magical force might
be added by God to the usual human forces at the disposal of
ordinary monarchs.
In the Jewish thought of this time there is no trace of the
principle that "governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed." The Jewish political theory
was that of the theocracy, with a visible representative of God
anointed by his authority and appointed by him, seated on
the throne, and exercising, without dispute, so far as other
men were concerned, the royal powers deputed by the invisible
God. We shall probably be safe in saying that such a theoc-
racy, in one or another modification, has always been the
theoretical form of the monarchies of earth until the modem
days of constitutional or limited monarchies, and it has per-
sisted even in them. Probably all the kings left on earth
today make at least formal claim in law or in title to reign
Dei Gratia, to be vicars or regents of the unseen (if not ab-
sent) God.
Whether or not a religion with a theocratic theory of civil
government is favorable to the development of democracy
will evidently depend on the faith held with regard to the
nature of the god and his relations with men. In so far as
the ruling deity governs men in accordance with what we have
called the principle of individual responsibility, he will develop
democratic tendencies and powers among his worshipers. In
so far as he rules men by outward compulsion, and reveals
his will by outward authority of some sort, not subject to
the criticism of the mind of the individual, the effect will be
630 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
anti-democratic. Democracy, we have seen, requires freedom
of judgment for every individual. Only the immanent god,
expressing his truth and will through the mind and conscience
of the individual is a friend to democracy, so far as this first
standard is concerned.
The second question about the relation of theocratic faith
to the development of democracy is concerned with the degree
in which it promotes the good will motive among men. Logi-
cally, doubtless, it might be shown that the principle of indi-
vidual responsibility is a form for thought and action, and an
empty form, without the good will, which is the only suitable
substance for the expression of that form. It might also be
maintained that good will without the form which we have
described under the term individual responsibiUty is hkely to
be ineffective, if not actually subversive of that which it would
promote, i.e., the welfare of men. Yet in practice the one or
the other may be emphasized and developed without a fully
parallel process in the other.
We may say that the principle of individual responsibility
had been recognized and taught by some of the greatest of
the prophets of Israel, but its meaning and implications
formed no essential part of the popular hope for the Kingdom
of God, in the time of Jesus. So also of the good will motive.
It also may be dimly discerned in some of the noblest thoughts
of the prophets, but before Jesus we cannot find any explicit
teaching that one should love all men, and certainly such
universal human love did not flow from the popular concep-
tion of the nature of God or of his will, in the first century.
Jesus, as we have noted, used the Kingdom of God as his
central theme. Like John the Baptist, we are told that he
commenced his ministry with the message than which no other
could have been so welcome or so exciting in his day: "Repent
for the Kingdom of God is at hand." His subsequent hfe
and teaching have been and are today interpreted in two
radically different ways. For our purposes, we may call the
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 631
one school of interpreters the autocratic and the other the
democratic school, according as the interpretation assumes
or finds that the principles of Jesus' Ufe and teaching are those
belonging to autocracy or democracy.
The autocratic school holds that Jesus actually came to
the earth to be substantially what the Jews were expecting,
only much more, to be the divine representative of God —
the visible presence of God himseh, on the earth, to rule hy
force not only the Jews and Palestine but also all the rest of
the earth. Most of this school would perhaps hold that for
some reason it was not intended to carry out the whole of
this program during the first earthly life of Jesus. They
would acknowledge, certainly, that the use of external force
to compel submission to "his claims" was abjured during his
life in past history, but that element of autocracy is soon to
be suppUed. The return of Jesus to the earth to reign with
external power, destroying his enemies and promoting his
friends, has been expected every year from the first century
down to the present, and the faith that he may come now at
any hour to reign as the Divine Kaiser, and bring order out
of the chaos and happiness out of the misery in which the
world now groans, is passionately believed and advocated by
large numbers of those who call themselves Christians, and,
of course, the only orthodox Christians upon the earth.
But this school, while acknowledging a conspicuous absence
of any attempt to compel submission by outward force during
his historical life upon the earth, would find the other principal
elements of autocracy even in that life. For these interpre-
ters, Jesus was absolute in his power and authority to reveal
truth and to legislate for mankind. Any utterance that he
made is to be accepted as true without any question as to
how it meets the ordinary tests of truth available to us today,
and to question any statement attributed to him in the Four
Gospels, with the possibility in mind of disputing its truth,
is nothing short of blasphemy.
632 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
Likewise Jesus had absolute authority to speak for God as
to what was right and wrong, to legislate for humanity. If
he said that to divorce except for adultery was to commit
adultery, that settles the matter forever, and if he said that
people should not resist evil, but should make violence easy
for the violent and robbery for the thief, then all war and all
police activity become automatically wicked. The moral
judgment or conscience of the individual has nothing to do in
any instance in which Jesus has thus laid down the law but
to apply it most simply and directly.
There are, of course, a great many who would be inconsist-
ent in their interpretation of Jesus' authority. They would
hold that Jesus taught nothing absurd, that we must try to
find a reasonable meaning for his teaching, and are bound to
obey it, only as we find such a reasonable meaning. Many,
for instance, would abjure pacificism, while at the same time
acknowledging the absolute authority of Jesus in all matters
upon which he spoke. They would find a reasonable meaning
to his injunction to "turn the other cheek" and to give up both
cloak and coat — a. teaching not as to the particular action to
be followed in all circumstances, but as to the spirit of love
that is to actuate under all circumstances. But these same
interpreters would not admit any such right of seeking a
reasonable meaning of the teaching upon divorce. That is
divine legislation not subject to human questioning. So if
Jesus said that he who should beUeve and be baptized should
be saved, the baptism has the same authority as the faith,
and no reason or experience has any weight to the contrary.
If it be asked how one is to be assured that Jesus had
such absolute authority, the Protestant answer is that the
divine nature and authority of Jesus were demonstrated by
events inexplicable on the ground of known laws and processes
of nature, preceding, during, and following the life of Jesus
upon the earth. Although the most of these works, famiharly
known as miracles, were benevolent in intention and helpful
TEE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 633
in result, that is only a harmonious incident. The valuation
of these events as proofs of divine authoiity depends entirely
upon the belief that they had no adequate cause except
"divine power, '' that they have no place in the laws or regular
processes of nature, and that we could not say that under the
same circumstances they would happen again, unless we include
as the principal circumstance the will of God to act directly
and without any regular means. To use the technical term
for such phenomena in religion and anthropology, the proof
of the authority of Jesus was his magical powers, and the
magical events associated with his life. The Catholic answer
to the question, What is the evidence for the absolute authority
of Jesus? would doubtless be: the word of the church is
your sufficient proof. And the Catholic church does not
require either to go back to the historical Jesus, or to await
his return as the divine Autocrat in order to have the benefits
of his absolute authority. It holds that the authority of
Jesus was delegated to the apostles, especially Peter and his
successors and that absolute power to declare truth or to legis-
late for men abides in the priestly authorities of the church.
The layman has individual responsibility only that he may
deliver it up to the church, and thereafter use it, in so far as
permitted by the church, imder its direction.
The democratic school of interpreters of Jesus holds that
he repudiated the autocratic ideal of the Kingdom of God,
as a political organization to be ruled by force, by a human or
quasi-\xoxQ3Ji king as God's representative. He believed,
apparently, that he was to be in some sense, doubtless in the
real or right sense, the Messiah, anointed by God to proclaim
and establish his Kingdom, but he steadfastly refused, perhaps
even to the end of his life, either to claim to be the Messiah
or to acknowledge definitely its proper application to him,
because it meant for the people, even for his disciples, such
an earthly autocrat as he refused to be, for he recognized that
such a king could not establish by autocratic methods the
634 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
Kingdom of God. He taught, then, a spiritual kingdom in
which God's reign was to be reaUzed through the submission
of the individual to the wiU of God, his inner loyalty to the
laws and purposes of God. Jesus recognized and maintained
the principle of individual responsibility to the full. He
required the individual to make his own moral judgments and
act, not according to any written code of laws of the past,
nor any new enactments which he himself made, but according
to God's voice in his mind and heart as expressed in the best
thought and feeling of his own consciousness. To be sure,
Jesus did not teach this principle expHcitly. But his whole
life and teaching was an expression of this principle.
Jesus said that he came to fulfil the traditional law of the
Jews as embodied in what we most commonly call the Old
Testament. But he showed what he meant by fulfilling, when
he sought out and taught the fundamental moral principles
contained within it, and insisted upon action according to
these principles even to the contravention of the letter of the
law. This attitude is shown clearly, the democratic school
would hold, in the passage in Matt. 5:21-48 and particularly
in his dealing with Sabbath laws and laws of ceremonial
purity. It is shown in his declaration of the Golden Rule
(Matt. 7:12) as the essence of the "law and the prophets"
and again in his assertion that the "law and the prophets"
hang upon the two great commandments of love to God and
to ntighbor (Matt. 22:38-40).
The democratic interpreters would further point out that
Jesus not only refused to be "a judge and divider," or to lead
a revolt against the government or to defend himself by force
of arms, but regarded the ambition to assume the power and
functions of an earthly king as a temptation to be sternly
resisted. This is described in picturesque imagery in the
account of the Devil offering him all the kingdoms of this
world, if he would " fall down and worship him." The accept-
ance of autocratic power would have been for Jesus worship
of the Devil.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 635
Most significant in opposition to the position that Jesus
claimed absolute authority to declare truth and to promulgate
moral law, and that this authority of Jesus was demonstrated
by inexplicable events or miracles, is the attitude which Jesus
himself maintained with regard to his authority and especially
with regard to confirmation by miracles. When the Phari-
sees came "seeking of him a sign from heaven" according
to probably the oldest account we have |(Mark 8:11, 12),
"He sighed deeply in his spirit and saith, Why doth this
generation seek a sign ? Verily I say unto you, There shall no
sign be given unto this generation." Whatever may be the
reason for and significance and truth of the parallel readings
in Matthew and Luke, referring to signs of the weather, and
the sign of Jonah, the fact remains that a miraculous sign was
refused as a confirmation of his authority. Of possibly greater
importance is the account in Mark 11:12-33, and parallels
in Matthew and Luke, according to which Jesus answered
the question of the chief priests and scribes as to his authority,
with the question to them about the authority of John the
Baptist. When they evaded an answer to this question he
refused the answer to theirs, evidently because his authority
rested upon the same foundation as that of John's. No miracle
is narrated of John, but the appeal of John's preaching to
mind and conscience wa? suflScient evidence that he was a
prophet or messenger from God. The evidence for the
authority of Jesus was precisely of the same sort. His
authority was that of the truth which he spoke and the good
which he taught and did; and of that every honest man was
the competent judge.
One further argument would be offered by the democratic
school from the story of the temptation. One of the tempta-
tions was to demonstrate his supernatural authority or divine
sonship by casting himself down from a "pinnacle of the
temple." That he recognized this impulse to acquire prestige
and a following by a supernatural sign, to be a temptation to
do evil, and resisted it, seems to be a further proof of his
636 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
recognition that his authority was purely that of the appeal
which his words and Ufe should make to the moral judgment
of the individual.
The answer of the democratic school to two principal
objections to its interpretation of Jesus, might well be noted
here. One objection is that the Fourth Gospel does represent
Jesus as a divine autocrat, and appeal to the confirmation
of his authority through miraculous signs. This would be
freely admitted, but the reply would be that this Gospel
differs radically from the earlier three in just these respects,
that both cannot be correct, that the Fourth Gospel is a product
probably of the early decades of the second century and rep-
resents the development of Christology up to that time, in
certain circles, rather than the real facts about Jesus.
The second objection is that while Jesus, in his historical
life, undoubtedly did refrain from autocratic aims and methods,
he expected and taught that he would presently return "in
the clouds, with power and great glory." To this it is replied
that the reputed utterances of Jesus on this subject, in the
synoptics, are few and of uncertain meaning, and that those
which seem more definitely to promise a return of Jesus "in
the glory of his Father with the holy angels" may be rather
the reflection of the faith which arose in connection with the
post-crucifixion visions of Jesus than a true account of his
own utterances. Or it may be that Jesus accepted the version
of the messianic hope, current in his time, that God would
soon interpose in a miraculous manner, to bring to a sudden
end the present age, and remedy existing wrongs and establish
his Kingdom in outward, visible form, by his supernatural
power. Beyond a doubt, something of this sort was ardently
expected by the early Christian church, mistakenly expected,
at least as to date, for the reappearance of Christ was con-
fidently looked for within the lifetime of some of those who had
seen and heard Jesus before his death. At best, the words of
Jesus on this subject, given in the Gospels, are very few, and
difficult of interpretation. The democratic school would admit
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 637
the possibility that Jesus himself may have mistakenly
accepted some of the messianic ideals of his time, but point
to the great weight of his unmistakable teaching of the prin-
ciples of the spiritual kingdom, which harmonize completely
with the democratic principle of individual responsibility.
Before leaving this contrasting of the rival autocratic and
democratic interpretations of Jesus, we may observe that those
students whom we have called the democratic school, are also
properly called the modem critical school. They endeavor
to develop religion in the full light of modern science and
present-day conditions, and feel not only free but required,
in order to a proper understanding and use of the Bible, to
use the historical method of study and interpretation, without
any attempt to accept all traditional views of authorship,
authenticity, and date of the various writings, or to harmonize
the statements and doctrines of each with all of the rest. The
autocratic school, on the other hand, is also the traditionalist
school, holding to the theory of the "deposit of faith" or the
"faith once for all delivered to the saints," probably in the
first century of our era, general accepting traditional interpreta-
tions, and views of authorship, integrity, date, etc., and regard-
ing the so-called historical study or "higher criticism" of the
Scriptures as impious and invalid. They are likely to be
skeptical toward many of the conclusions of modem science
and research, and to hold that the religion of the apostles of
Jesus is the ideal and perfect religion, fully and perfectly
adapted to all the needs of humanity in all time, subject
therefore to no modification or change.
In considering these rival interpretations of the hfe and
teaching of Jesus, in their relation to democracy, we have
looked particularly at their respective positions with regard
to the principle of individual responsibility. We must also
notice briefly their attitude toward the good will motive.
Without doubt the autocratic school has generally accepted
in theory the teaching of Jesus that the law of love is the
638 TEE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
fundamental law of God, and tried to teach the loving life
and extend its influence, by precept and example. Its
deficiency in this regard has arisen from the fact that it has
made other principles and motives of equal or greater impor-
tance, and has violated the law of love or acted contrary to
the good will motive in many cases. To make belief in the
authority of the pope or the church or the Scriptures or the
value of the sacraments as important or more important for
the individual than belief in the Ufe of love, is, of course, to
minimize the latter. One may say that practically aU of the
Christianity of the past up to a himdred years ago or less,
has been that of the autocratic school, in one or another of
its forms. And we look in vain for any of the great historic
symbols, creeds, or confessions of faith which declares that
good will to all men is absolutely essential to the welfare —
the salvation — of the individual and of humanity.
This good will has not been taught as an essential of
salvation, but various other things, all of them belonging to
the general system of autocracy, have been declared essential.
The general, conscious influence of historical Christianity down
to the most recent times, has therefore been favorable to autoc-
racy and hostile to democracy, in its denial of the principle
of individual responsibihty, and its neglect of and action
contrary to the good will motive. Nevertheless imder the
pressure of the needs and conditions of humanity, and of the
truth and value of the love-principle within Christianity,
however officially neglected, democracy has been developing
under the shadow — often the protecting and often the blight-
ing shadow — of Christianity.
We noted in passing, that the democratic school recognized
Jesus' teaching of the law of love, or the good will motive as
of fxmdamental importance, both in his own thought and in
its value for humanity. We may say that the whole tendency
of this modem school is to make and keep this good will
motive central in religion and in its interpretation of Jesus.
TEE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A DEMOCRATIC IDEAL 639
The historical content of the phrase "Kingdom of God"
has varied much, but that term has, naturally, always been
interpreted in harmony with the general principles and ideals
of the theologians of the time and group. It has been under-
stood to mean a form of organization of society and of divine
rule in it, of Palestine, or of the whole of himianity on this
earth, or to denote the organized church within humanity, or
a condition to be reaUzed not upon earth at all but in heaven.
In most of these ideas God has been thought of as the Almighty
Autocrat, and human autocratic methods have been used
by church and state to express and enforce the divine rule.
The democratic school of Christianity would hold that God
truly rules only in so far as the individual acts from the good
will motive, and freely decides for himself how he ought to
act to express this motive. It repudiates autocracy altogether,
even divine autocracy.
In svmimarizing the foregoing discussion we may say that
all principles of religion which maintain the existence of
any authority outside of the individual, to which he should
submit unconditionally, are to that extent anti-democratic.
Such principles are government by a hierarchy not chosen by
or responsible to the laity; salvation through the magical
influence of the sacraments; submission to "the church"
however organized, as an authority for truth and morals
superior to and not subject to the criticism of the individual,
acceptance of a body of scripture as giving complete and infal-
lible information and direction in regard to religious and moral
truth and life; beUef in the imminent return of Jesus to be an al-
mighty and all-wise autocrat, destroying or coercing all who fail
to submit entirely to his wiU, and abolishing, since supplanting,
all spiritual movements for the redemption of humanity and
poUtical movements for the establishment of democracy.
Out of the mass of literature on this subject, two very timely
and valuable articles in the Biblical World for July, 191 9, may
be referred to, the one on " Premillenialism, " by H. F. Rail
640 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
and the other on "Making Christianity Safe for Democracy"
by G. B. Smith.
The "Kingdom of God" we may beUeve, was a democratic
conception in the mind of Jesus, but it has been largely an
autocratic conception from his day to ours. It is again being
given a democratic interpretation by the "democratic school"
of interpreters to which we have referred, and, more or less,
doubtless, by many who do not fully accept the principles and
conclusions of this school. It may be doubted whether this
term will be abandoned or supplanted in the foreseeable future
to any appreciable extent by even the most democratic. But
in view of the fact that the term "kingdom" inevitably suggests
autocracy and when used in religion an autocratic God, it
might be well for friends of democracy occasionally to
emphasize the democratic interpretation as contrasted with
the other, and perhaps to use other phrases more obviously
democratic to make clear their use of this famous term, so
dear to us from a thousand associations.
But let us remember that we cannot get a democracy, or
indeed a satisfactory condition of humanity, without good
will freely expressed. Such free good will cannot be obtained
by force from the outside of any form, divine or human.
The spirit of love will never rule either by magic or machine-
guns. Force must be used to control those who do not desire
and are not ready to help promote the welfare of others, but
to just the extent that it must thus be used, to that extent is
democracy unrealized, and the Kingdom of the Loving Father
incomplete.
