A war worth fighting.
Within Reformed circles there's an intense debate between the Two Kingdom Theology position which I advocate here, (though in a more extreme fashion than many Reformed), and the Monistic One Kingdom position argued by Dominionists, Theonomists, and Postmillennialists, and all other expressions of Transformationalist theology.
The point the One Kingdom people keep raising is that Two Kingdom theology would be accommodating to a situation akin to 1930's Germany, that is, the Church acquiescing and even going along with such a government. They think that unless you're a political activist like them, then you'll succumb to propaganda.
I will continue to insist Two Kingdom theology (2K) is the only system which can consistently maintain a vigilant antithesis and protect the Church from the seducing power of culture or the coercion and temptation to identify with the state and/or engage with it in a joint Kingdom building project.
What the 1K adherents can't seem to grasp is that it is precisely their theology which leads to scenarios like the Medieval Roman tyranny, the persecution of Christians in Habsburg, Stuart, and Bourbon domains, religious conflicts like the English Civil War and Thirty Years War, Irish Penal Laws, and ultimately to 19th century Nationalism which set the stage for the horrors of 20th Century and especially Nazi Germany. And as we are well on our way into the 21st century, this Sacralist theology is alive and well.
In fact it was no coincidence that is was these very people, adherents of Christo-Americanism, a variant or provincial expression of One Kingdom Constantinianism, which eagerly supported George Bush as he started wars, imprisoned innocents and American citizens, turned our airports into totalitarian police zones, tortured people, generated fear through largescale and widespread media manipulation, and violated several of our constitutional amendments, stripping us of many long held freedoms. He was the closest thing we've had in the 20th century to a totalitarian president and the Christians, often including our Transformationalist friends were the cheerleaders in the front row. It is also these same people which cry the loudest about the Muslim and Mexican populations within our boundaries, exposing the racism which Sacralism often generates. They fear Two Kingdom theology is susceptible to propaganda, yet it is their very Kingdom compromise which leads to blindness regarding the agenda and means of propaganda employed by the state.
Fascism works wonderfully with Constantinian theology. Astoundingly they somehow have a large number of Americans convinced that Obama is a fascist...that somehow leftist politics lead to fascism. This kind of argument stems from...I don't how else to put it....gross ignorance. If they bothered to visit Europe or talk to anyone who lived there, they would quickly see that socialism does not equal fascism. Often they employ these terms in unorthodox fashion, confusing economic systems with political ideologies and historic movements. Their viewpoint is cloaked with Biblical language and backed by proof-texts, but often seems to reflect values and systems peculiar to the United States and its unique social history.
Am I advocating socialism? Not at all, nor am I advocating the present American system, a dysfunctional plutocracy. What I'm calling for in these debates is some sanity and truthfulness, sorely lacking it would seem. When Nationalism is injected into the discussion...the discussion is over, at least as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing more to say. You can't argue from the Bible, because they've embraced an idol. Until that is removed, you can't engage in meaningful discussion.
If they bothered to read contemporaries on the Left they would find out Obama has proved to be a terrible disappointment, almost an extension of the Bush regime. If he is fascist at all, it's only in the sense that he's followed Bush's footsteps on many points concerning 'security' and militarism. The Right's interpretation of the 'bailouts' and the health care issues, are sharply contradicted by those on the Left who see Obama as a complete sell-out on these issues. He has completely compromised with the tremendous powers behind the global banking, insurance, and defense contracting industries. Rather than the aggressive government juggernaut portrayed by the Right, he has proven a willing participant in the extension of Establishment power. He has not brought the 'Change' they were looking for.
A lesson can be learned....political power is by no means the only power, and it is largely, not entirely, but largely at the beck and call of those who back it. The politicians are often but tools for the powerful corporate interests who in reality wield much, if not most of the power. We don't need to dive into conspiracy, we need to just have a Biblical view of man's fallenness and the effect it has on the human heart when it is given real or potential power. The Apostles understood this and warned us of its dangers not just in the world...but even within the Church.
Again, a non-Sacralist view, a conscious Two-Kingdom position allows you to sit back, assess and discern. It allows you to see the nature of power, the moral bankruptcy of the entire political system...it allows you to see right through what they're doing. It drives the current events-minded to look far beyond mere domestic issues and attempt to understand the world setting, and critically, the place of the Church within it. Rather than confuse work and activism with Kingdom building, we can pursue our true vocation....to be Christians.
Normally I would dive in a debate like the one I've linked below, but I've got way too much on my plate at the moment. But some of you may wish to engage, or perhaps by just reading the interaction you may benefit from the exchanges.
Here's the link to an article at Green Baggins, a popular Reformed site...and from there you can surf to the Bayly's blog (Theonomic) and to Darryl Hart's (Two Kingdom) site called Old Life.
I will be the first to admit...a lot of these threads end up degenerating and becoming unprofitable, but you can see where other people are coming from, how they argue etc...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this debate is only occurring within the Reformed/Calvinistic sphere. Primarily a Sacralist tradition, it has always had a lively anti-Constantinian minority. I'm not aware of any other groups/traditions having this sort of discussion.
Recently I've discovered there are some people within the Campbellite Church of Christ which have been discussing Yoder and reassessing some of their Americanist legacy. For those unfamiliar with the name, Yoder was the preeminent anti-Constantinian of the 20th century. Mostly Anabaptist in his orientation, I am not in full agreement with him, but he's definitely worth exploration. On many points I wholeheartedly concur with his thought. His popularity is growing, which I find encouraging. There seem to be a lot of people who realize there is something seriously wrong with American Christianity. Perhaps they can't articulate it, but they're looking.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for such people. It is a confusing mess out there with many pitfalls. The Emergent Church in particular is pulling a lot of these people in with a message that seems unique and inspiring, sometimes even reminiscent of Reformation-era Anabaptism. In reality it is much closer to some of the theologically liberal movements we saw in the late 19th and early 20th century. Sadly, history is not greatly appreciated in our culture. If it were, many would realize we're seeing many of the same historical movements re-appear, manifesting themselves in new forms, sometimes re-cast with different terminology. The Emergent Church in many ways is the Social Gospel re-cast, a more hip and cutting edge version of the leftist-Constantinianism espoused by Jim Wallis. In that sense, it bears no resemblance to Anabaptism which was and is solidly anti-Constantinian wherever it may fall on the political spectrum.
I appreciate some of what the Emergents wish to do in terms of authenticity and I am certainly in favour of re-thinking ecclesiology, but their deliberate post-modern views of truth and a perilously low view of the Scriptures have led them into a serious departure from the Biblical gospel.
I only mention the Emergent movement, because they are definitely the latest thing and as you're perusing the internet and looking up topics related to the discussions here...it is likely you will or already have, run into them and their writings.
It's a hard movement to pin down, their language is not always forthright, and in that sense there is a real danger. Just a friendly word of warning....
So when it comes to the Kingdom, one can only hope that people will turn back to old paths and discover not only good 20th century authors like Yoder and Verduin,...but a wealth of lessons we can learn from the past.