For some readers this is revisiting old ground. But some
find it helpful to continually revisit these basic themes. These two posts are responses
to two articles. The articles are fairly brief and helpful in providing a
matrix for this discussion. I hope that those who are still struggling with
understanding these issues can read these pieces and my responses and in the
end come to a fuller understanding of just what is at stake.
The second piece by Tuininga is actually much
less helpful and far more guilty of generalization and at times
misrepresentation. But it's still worth looking at.
Tuininga makes much over the fact that
creation as is continues and takes that to mean that somehow its actions and
fruits can somehow be redeemed or sanctified. This error is simply a repetition
of the entire Dominionist thesis which takes Genesis 1.26-27 as a mandate in
perpetuity and yet misses the effects of the fall even in the mandate's
reiteration after the Flood.
The mandate (as it were) is fulfilled by
Christ the Second Adam and will only come to fruition with this world's
destruction and remaking. To suggest the Church fulfills the mandate in this
age is utopian, an attempt to build heaven on earth. It's an attempt to
re-create Eden (and the Tree of Life) in the here and now. But we read in the
Apocalypse that these things will only occur after the Second Coming and in
fact I would argue the attempt to reconstitute Eden/Zion in the present only
leads to a false Zion. It is little more than placing a cross atop the Tower of
Babel.
They would of course deny this is what they
are attempting to do. I believe Dominionists are largely sincere in their
motives, but they have grossly misunderstood what the Scriptures teach
concerning the Kingdom and Church of Christ.
Some have grasped the problems with utopianism
or an over-emphasis on a theology of glory and thus they try to modify the
model. In the end they deny there will be success in this age but in terms of
practice the Church is to effectively proceed with this way of thinking. It's
kind of like 'keep trying' but we'll never succeed before Christ returns. I
argue the 'trying' itself is misguided and in fact quite dangerous.
Tuininga seems more keen to defend the Two
Kingdom theory a la Luther and Calvin and relegate other Two Kingdom camps as
being deviationist.
I will happily admit that Luther and certainly
Calvin's views of the Kingdom are not my own or what other Two Kingdom
advocates would believe. It is critical to realize that Luther's view (and this
followed by Horton, Van Drunen and others) still acknowledges the Magisterial
Sword as somehow part of the Kingdom or Kingdom-work and certainly a legitimate
function for a Christian to exercise.
They will defend this by pointing out that the
Magistrate is referred to as a 'minister' in Romans 13. That's fine but it is
to be understood in terms of General Providence. Paul is laying out that while
magistrates are basically agents of violence (sword-bearers) they still serve a
purpose in keeping the world from falling into utter chaos. He's not for a
moment implying that we are somehow part of that or that (even worse) we would
look to the magistrate to aid us in the building of the Kingdom. Nero was the
magistrate in Romans 13. That was not Paul's position.
Paul is speaking more in terms of how Cyrus of
Achaemenid Persia or the Assyrians are agents of God's Providence. The
magistrate can be used to bring Judgment or Blessing. That in no way meant that
Persia or Assyria were somehow sanctified or Covenantal.
We neither join with the magistrate nor do we
war against it. It is what it is. Generally speaking if we're not making
trouble the magistrate will leave us alone which is in fact what we want. This
is why Paul prays that they would let us live our quiet lives engaged in the
work of the Kingdom.
This language concerning the state is speaking
in general terms. At other times the Bestial aspect becomes more manifest and
when we refuse to worship the Beast we are persecuted.
Yes, Calvin and the Reformers were trying to
re-work the Constantinian model that had been hijacked by the even more
outrageous and unbiblical claims of the Papacy. They wanted to restrict the
direct jurisdiction of the Church and legitimize and strengthen the hand of the
magistrate. After all the Reformation would not have happened without Magisterial
support. This was critical to their project and exactly why it was flawed from
the beginning and must be ultimately rejected.
But even then it fails. And this becomes so
clear in the years that follow as we think of the Anglo-American context in
terms of the English Civil War or Puritan New England. Under their model the
king or magistrate must be part of the Church and the Church will hold the King
politically and legislatively accountable. Thus in the end (and this was clear
enough in Geneva) the Church is still ascendant. Instead of a Head Priest you
simply end up with a council of them. Priest writ large as Milton rightly said.
Calvin's system and especially its Scottish Presbyterian variety are little
more than Episcopalian Christendom recast.
Ironically it was the Reformation in the end which
strengthened the state vis-a-vis the Church and ended the centuries of struggle.
The Hildebrandian model of Church over state was cast down once and for all. The
struggle continued in modified form in Protestant circles but by 1700 was over.
The state had won.
The Reformation changed many things but one
thing it definitely accomplished was an empowering of the state and the
doctrines of the Enlightenment to support it... hardly something modern day
Christian political activists wish to celebrate.
Tuininga echoes Calvin's caricatures and misrepresentations
of Anabaptism as destructively anarchistic. He like Calvin fails to understand
how a rejection of Christendom does not mean a rejection of civilization.
Rejecting Christendom is not a rejection of Christ or His Kingship. Actually
from the Two Kingdoms perspective it is a rejection of a Pseudo-Christ or a
Pseudo-Zion.
The Anabaptists of Munster fell prey to false
prophets and visions. I'm not going to defend their actions but I will only say
it was a deviation, not the norm. It was not a faithful representation of
mainstream Anabaptism let alone Medieval Waldensian ethics. Remember it was the
Bohemian Chelcicky (whose voice speaks the heart and soul of Medieval dissent)
who criticized the violent revolutionary Taborite branch of Hussitism. They too
were a deviation and like Munster failed and disappeared.
Tuininga seems to allude to Munster in his
comments. This is a common slander used by Magisterial Protestants to discredit
the Anabaptists and all they stood for... as if the Munster Revolt were the
norm or in any way represents what the Anabaptists generally stand for. Its
excesses and failure are utilized to dismiss the entire Anabaptist
Anti-Sacralist view even though Munster didn't actually represent them. It is a
classic straw-man argument.
Tuininga errs in assuming that modern Two
Kingdoms doctrine is a response to the Social Gospel. Reformed Two Kingdoms
doctrine has arisen in conservative Confessional circles which eschewed the
Social Gospel a century ago. In reality it is a mostly healthy response to the
Christian Right and movements like Theonomy which have had a profound effect on
the Church.
Though Theonomy in its original form has all
but disappeared it has left a long shadow.
The theological particulars may have been all
but refuted but it reawakened and stirred numerous older impulses regarding the
culture and the state. The Cultural Consensus in the American setting which
ranged from the post-Revolution period to the 20th century meant
that practically speaking the Churches didn't really have to address these
questions. The Civil War would be something of an anomaly leading to the split
and the Southern view of 'spirituality'... but it was largely the various cultural
shifts and crises of the Post-World War era that forced the Church to revisit
and re-think these issues. The Reformed were by no means alone in this.
Tuininga is correct in noting that Two Kingdom
advocates have been critical of the Christian Right Political project as a
re-working of the Social Gospel but Tuininga of course will not accept this
criticism. The core issues which led the Confessional Churches to reject the
Social Gospel are now being used against them by some Two Kingdom partisans and
rightly so. So in one sense Tuininga is correct. It is a reaction to a form of
'Social Gospel' though not the Social Gospel of the early 20th
century.
The Social Gospel sought to build a better
society through the process of Christianization. It sought to utilize social
institution to aid in the spread of its version of the Kingdom of God. The
political and social goals are different with the modern Dominionist influenced
Christian Right but the general idea is the same.
Tuininga misreads Hart and accuses him of
separating Christianity from daily life. He makes the same mistake as Evans and
more Two Kingdom critics who just cannot grasp the idea that we live as
Christians in the world and yet the things we do aren't specifically Christian
nor does the Bible envision or empower us in the transformation of the cultural
activities into something that's part of the Redemptive Kingdom.
For Tuininga to do something that isn't
working toward Transformation would probably be reckoned sinful. Doing are
daily tasks aren't sinful. They are simply means in a fallen world. We look at
the world differently and as Christians our lives have meaning and purpose. But
the means are in the end just that... means. They are not ends. They simply
serve a temporary purpose which is often as simple as putting food on the
table. If we can't go about our daily tasks with Christian integrity then we
don't do them. What I mean is that if our jobs require us to violate Christian
ethics, then we don't try to transform the job... we quit and find something
else to do.
This sends Dominionists into a frenzy. The
idea that we would abandon segments of society like the military, police or
much of the business world to the pagans is unacceptable. Under their model
every 'sphere' must be Christianized. We either must transform it into the
Kingdom or if completely unredeemable we must eradicate it.
This is to misunderstand the Church's place in
the world. We can be thankful there are structures of culture and even to some
extent a magistrate. This doesn't mean they are part of God's Kingdom. They are
simply mechanisms utilized by Providence to restrain chaos while the Gospel
goes forth. They exist as something akin to necessary evils. They must be, but
have nothing to do with us. We interact with them by paying taxes etc... but
they are forever 'without'.
Tuininga seems to suggest that this approach teaches
that we abandon the law of God in our daily lives. Nothing could be further
from the truth. And once again I argue that the sacralization of culture ends
up legitimizing tasks (which are necessary to culture) that are in fact sinful
for Christians to engage in. The moral loophole that Tuininga can hide behind
is the erroneous Reformation view of Vocation which reckons daily tasks as
holy, redemptive Kingdom tasks. The Bible teaches a doctrine of Vocation. Our Vocation
or calling is to be Christians. The other things that we do, we do as
Christians, but painting, paperwork, delivery driving, and answering phones are
not Christian tasks. That doesn't mean they are necessarily evil but they're
not Christian. The fruit of these tasks do not build God's Kingdom on earth.
They are not redeemed and thus part of the Kingdom. They will not play a part
in the Age to Come. The fruits of these tasks will burn in the fires of
Judgment.
Since we do them as Christians when we show
kindness to others we interact with, speak with wisdom or even stand our ground
and get fired... these things are living out our Christian life and calling. I
can give a kind word as I hand over a package but helping UPS or FedEx gain
stock value through profits does not help in the redemption of the world.
I can run my business and manage my time with
moral integrity (and more or less fail as a consequence) but as I wire and
plumb a room for covetous and wasteful people, I'm not building the Kingdom. My
relationships and interactions with co-workers and clients, these can help
build the Kingdom, but connecting water lines is incidental and non-redemptive.
It's just a means to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.
The Monistic thought-patterns of Sacralism are
unable to apprehend let alone comprehend this truth which is actually quite
important to understanding the New Testament. This concept is very much present
in statements like Christ's declaration concerning the Roman coin.
Tuininga I argue cannot possibly understand
how Christ could say give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. They
are not two spheres of the same Kingdom. They are two different realms
altogether and never the twain shall meet.
Or consider Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians
regarding those who are without, let alone his sentiments regarding our pilgrim
posturing that seeks to lead a quiet life, minding our own business and that in
order to be a good soldier of Christ we don't entangle ourselves in the affairs
of this life...
I commend Tuininga for his comments on Van
Drunen. They are helpful and elucidate some common themes that all Two Kingdom
advocates hold dear. Even though we might not agree with all of Van Drunen's
solutions, his analysis and criticism of Kuyperian Neo-Calvinism as concisely
reported by Tuininga needs to be considered.
Tuininga mentions two realms. Again I think
it's better to think in terms of Reign and Realm. Christ 'reigns' over all as
Creator and Judge but not all is specifically part of the Holy Realm. It will
be after His return... not merely because of transformation but because of
purging and a new creation. There's a significant difference.
Van Drunen seeks to develop a non-redemptive
morality that can function in the world and has decided to turn to Natural Law
as a possible solution. All cultures more or less can agree on basic principles
concerning right and wrong. These can be the basis for creating a world that
while by no means becomes a Zion can at least be a somewhat better place while
we await the return of our Lord.
I don't share Van Drunen's concern. Call me a
pessimist even a cynic but the more we grasp the state of the world and
magnitude of depravity such an endeavour seems to be not only a waste of time
but there's really very little evidence for it to be found in Scripture.
Our role as Salt and Light are in terms of our
martyr-witness and the testimony/proclamation of the Gospel. The more the
macro-level political, social and economic systems are considered the more I
find they simply will not work. They are but ideological dreams, static paper models
in an unfathomably complicated world. This does not mean that we throw our
hands up in despair and head for the hills.
No, we live as exiles in Babylon, build our
houses, plant our gardens and raise our families. We live, do what we can in
terms of society. In terms of the lost world, pragmatic solutions are probably
more realistic and hopeful than working toward the implementation of flawed
ideological systems.
But where we make a real difference is among
the handful of people that we really get know. Babylon will fight its wars,
pass its good and bad laws, be conquered and replaced by another Babylon. Some
times will be better than others. Some models will work fairly well in one
context and in another open the door to wickedness. Our job is to speak the
truth and with open eyes denounce and expose the works of darkness that we may
contrast them with the Kingdom of Truth.