Lutheranism of course holds to a form of Two Kingdom Theology
but there are significant differences between their view and the view that I
adhere to. Their view of Two Kingdoms legitimates
the Secular City in a way mine does not. That said, my view does not delegitimise the City of Man but draws a
sharp line of distinction between the Church and World, one significantly more
pronounced then what is found in Lutheranism. It could be said they have a more
positive view of the state and view it as contributing to the Kingdom but argue
it cannot be explicitly identified with the Kingdom.
It is this latter point which keeps them from getting into
deeper theological trouble though functionally I would also argue that it
largely failed to ever be a reality in German society. From Augsburg's cuius regio, eius regio to the Prussian
Union of 1817 to the later Kulturkampf, Lutheranism's record of applying the
Two Kingdoms is a poor one indeed. We will omit an in-depth discussion of the dark
developments that took place in the 20th century as they are
complicated. Some protested the developments and resisted but most did not. I
think it was largely in keeping with their notions of social conformity. This
latter episode is misunderstood and a tool of manipulation in the hands of
Dominionists that wish to denounce any form of Two Kingdom theology. Again I would
argue it never actually functioned in Lutheranism. In the end, the Magisterial
Reformation produced little more than a Protestant version of Sacralism, a new
era and manifestation of Christendom.
My view is much closer to the Anabaptist understanding minus
the legalism that often accompanies their separatism. I think Meredith Kline's
views are probably helpful at this point. He provides some nuance and
elaborates on the nature of the City of Man and our place in it in a way that
differs from both Sacralists and the Hyper-Separatists. The doctrine of Common
Grace is somewhat lacking in Anabaptist thought, though at this point I think
Kline and even some of his adherents go too far in a positive attitude toward
culture. In terms of the Church's position vis-à-vis the culture I lie
somewhere between Kline and the cultural separatism of the early 20th
century Fundamentalists.
They Lutherans see culture and the state as having a positive
and contributive role while I tend to see it as little more than God's means of
keeping man's depravity at bay. I would argue the rewarding of 'good' that's
associated with the state in the New Testament is to be understood in the same
way the Babylonian or Assyrian empires might reward it, or the Roman for that
matter. It's not in a covenantal context as the overt Sacralists would have it.
They of course go much further than the Lutherans.
At best the 'good' we're speaking of must be taken in a very
generalised sense. We can speak of Natural Law but understanding that the
formation of a Natural Theology is an exercise in futility and in the end only
leads to reductionist misrepresentations of Revelatory truth. Natural Law is
part of the means of restraint, but it's always imperfect and flawed and
necessarily so.
In Reformed circles figures like Michael Horton more or less
echo the Lutheran view on this point and several others. He and those
associated with him are sometimes accused of being Crypto-Lutherans (Hidden or
Secret Lutherans). The Two Kingdom Theology associated with Westminster West is
also very similar to the Lutheran view. In fact they would identify their
position as more or less 'The Reformation' view. There are differences of
course, the legacy of Calvin, Knox and the Puritans. There are those in the
Reformed heritage that can certainly dispute their claim. In fact Reformed
theology more or less ended up embracing the Sacralist route... the covenanted
society, the Kingdom by legislation etc... and the Two Kingdom view has come to
be more or less rejected by many if not most in their circles. It's a raging
debate but almost all of the Reformed with the exception of a very few would
utterly repudiate my own views, denouncing them as separatist and leading to a
Christian cultural ghetto.
In the context of growing secularisation (19th and
early 20th centuries), we must also note Abraham Kuyper's particular
influence and in more recent years the mixed and still debated legacy of
Cornelius Van Til.
The vast majority of the Reformed would regard Kuyper as
something of an ideal. This is true of both the overtly Sacralist and
Crypto-Lutheran camps. Both embrace Kuyper but both insist he represents their
particular framework. I think the Horton/Westminster West crowd probably has
probably made a more correct assessment of him. A complicated and sometimes
contradictory figure he was the ostensibly Christian statesman who viewed the
secular calling of being prime minister equal to his calling to pastor a church
and lead a denomination.
I totally repudiate that view and Kuyper is a figure that I
do not think worthy of esteem regardless of one's reading of him. In fact I
think he's one of the great villains of the modern church. I recall reading (with
eagerness) his much touted 'Stone Lectures' given during his visit to Princeton
in 1898. I found them to be full of historical and theological errors and I
immediately grew suspect of him and the fellow students and professors so eager
for me to read his works. I was indeed affected by Kuyper but not in the way
those that had recommended him to me would have wished. In fact it was at that
point that I started to re-think many of the salient issues and began my
gradual departure from identify with the Reformed. My reading of the Stone
Lectures was something of a watershed. The gnawing doubts became an open wound
that I sought to remedy. It took many years to work things out but in a sense I
can thank Kuyper for being a catalyst.
His shadow looms large over figures from Rushdoony to Francis
Schaeffer and by refraction over the whole of modern Dominionistic Evangelicalism.
His ideas were broad and brought about very different results depending on the
context. He influenced Dutch politics but also greatly influenced the
architects of Apartheid South Africa. Even among his familial descendants
(Kuyper died in 1920) there were those who sheltered Jews and those who joined
the Waffen-SS. While I can't 'blame' Kuyper for some of these negative
associations, his ideas blur the line of antithesis and confused the Church vis-à-vis
the culture.
Kuyper taught a notion of antithesis, something the Lutherans
seem to lack. Yet, his notion of antithesis is almost a political concept. He
wants to note the difference between Christian and non-Christian thinking. This
is not so Christians can maintain their identity as strangers and pilgrims but
instead to mark the difference so that as we apply our influence upon society
and seek to conquer the culture we will be able to maintain our identity. It's a clash of the worldviews and yet I
would argue that worldview teaching (a la
Kuyper) in fact denies the antithesis and has already capitulated to the
world and its lusts. The Kuyperian notion of antithesis is something of a fraud
and is wholly overshadowed by his other theological impulses.
The Lutherans don't have a Kuyper per se, but the view easily
resonates with their Two Kingdom paradigm. The Reformed version represents a
greater development and more intellectually robust version of the idea. I would
imagine the Lutherans wish they would have had such a figure in 19th
century Germany, one that might have provided leadership for the Lutheran
churches which had completely merged with German culture. They have a few
figures but none as comprehensive in their outlook or as far reaching as
Kuyper.
When compared to overt Dominionism and in particular the
Theonomic varieties of it, there seems to
be a resemblance in the Lutheran and Westminster-West views vis-à-vis my
own. The resemblance is superficial. They are Sacralists minus the official
legislative aspect. In Reformed circles the debate is between the Kuyperian Two
Kingdom folks and the overtly Sacralist camps. From my standpoint both factions
(and their numerous and variegated sub-groups) are on the wrong side of the
line and the difference is simply one of degree and emphasis rather than
anything foundational.
The Lutherans strongly emphasize the concept of Vocation.
Kuyper of course did as well and while there are great similarities there are
nuanced differences. Kuyper emphasized the notion of Sphere Sovereignty. It's a
completely extra-Scriptural concept, but a nice bit of speculative deduction
worked out from a Sacralist axiom. He worked out a doctrine of Vocation within
that framework. On this point Kuyper clearly breaks with Theonomists and those
explicitly committed to a 'Christian' country. His view on this point is
somewhat similar to Catholic Social Teaching as well as the notion embraced by
some Evangelicals that Christians should be a component in the society, should
have a place at the table, a role to play in upholding the structure. Some
adopt this view in principle and others as a pragmatic compromise, a tactic to
counter growing secularisation. What's sometimes decried as 'retreat' by the
hardliners is for some the ideal. Ironically though the Theonomists wish to
'claim' him, this pluralist view was more akin to Kuyper's own.
A more explicit form of Dominionism, borrowing from the other
side of Kuyper is candid in their idea that the task of the Church is to take
power. They often employ the famous statement of Kuyper wherein he declares
that Christ is sovereign over every aspect of society and existence and that declares
all of it as 'mine'. For many like Pat Robertson, DJ Kennedy, and now figures
like Kevin Swanson etc... this is the part of Kuyper they like to run with and
he has greatly influenced them.
Taken prima facie
it sounds obvious, something every Christian should agree with. But it's not
that simple and in fact in Kuyper's framework it's absolutely devastating to
the antithesis of the Church with the world and our understanding of how to
live in This Present Age. Kuyper like all Christian Sacralists has a very
deformed concept of the New Covenant and what it means that God's people are in
Covenant with Him and His Holy Nation... in a way the world is not. It's
strange but in the same way the theological liberals assert the universal
Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man, the Dominionists fall into the same
error. They want to insist that the Covenant is universal rather than
understand that in the New Testament God's people are a suffering remnant,
peculiar, set apart, a little flock of martyrs. They are in Covenant with God,
not the culture at large. Likewise in the Old Testament while pagan nations are
denounced by the prophets in general moral terms, they are never rebuked for
failing to uphold the Levitical code, the Sabbath or any of the ordinances
associated with the covenant. They were not under the Mosaic Law.
The Lutheran view seems (to me) to be a bit more basic. It's
not so much tied in with notions of Cultural Mandate or Dominion but instead
seems to justify and legitimize social conformity. Society is legitimate and therefore
since society comes up with a myriad of different tasks, offices and
disciplines, the doctrine of Vocation is a way to Christianise these various tasks.... without necessarily creating
an explicitly Christian social order.
I would argue we do our jobs as Christian people but in many
cases the actual work itself is not explicitly Christian but falls under the
category of that which will be destroyed at the end of the age. The job is not
a holy vocation. It's a job, a means to an end. It does not build the Kingdom
of God. We as Christians build it by the Spirit and Word, not with hammers,
computers, violins or courtrooms. According to the New Testament our only
calling or vocation is to be Christians. What I do on this earth to live and
support my family may be something I enjoy (or not) but it's not something holy
or eternal. That kind of detachment certainly should affect how we think about
work, time, money and status.
Horton and those associated with him take it a step further
than the Lutherans. The secular is legitimate so as Christians we ought to
produce the best art, science,
politics etc... They are very much against Separatism and to me their professed
antithesis seems to remain on the theoretical even superficial level. They seem
to argue that we (as Christians) have different motivations and thought
processes than unbelievers as we jointly contribute to the City of Man. We help
them and in a sense they help us. We just understand it all differently than
the unbeliever but in God's grand plan, we all play our part.
I do not agree with this kind of thinking. I would say we
help in the sense of keeping the peace but we also bear witness against them.
Our help and participation are very limited. The only sense in which the world
helps us is in providing (hopefully) a peaceful social order wherein we can
live and bear witness to the truth. Though the world doesn't know it (as they
build their version of Babel) the only reason they are avoiding Divine Wrath is
because God is longsuffering and giving them a chance (as it were) to repent.
He's delaying the impending Judgment. That does not provide a real positive
outlook for the City of Man nor does it warrant a great deal of investment on
our part. This is where I will sound more like a Fundamentalist who sees little
point in polishing brass on a sinking ship. That's a caricature to be sure.
We're to pray for the peace of Babylon and do our part to help that peace
exist... but it's still just Babylon isn't it?
They cannot 'help' us and apart from peaceful streets the
City of Man has very little to offer to us.
Of course I completely reject the Protestant doctrine of
Vocation. To me it was simply a means to retain a form of Constantinianism in
its Post-Papal disintegrated form. The Scriptural doctrine of Vocation refers
to our calling to be Christians, our heavenly calling, our status as strangers
and pilgrims in this age. It's a call to antithesis. These other variations use
it as a means to justify and rationalise participation and collaboration with
the world. They promote 'Vocation' but their understanding of it actually destroys our distinct calling,
the Vocation of Scripture.
I don't know whether the Reformed or Lutheran view is worse.
The Lutheran/conformist view has a very poor record indeed and the Reformed
view fundamentally changes the outworking of eschatology, ethics and the nature
of the Kingdom. One camp will go along with the trouble while the other makes
it. Instead we should refuse to participate and denounce it. We should never
give in nor try to co-opt the City of Man. It's always a case of 'Us and Them'
but apart from our testimony we should give them no reason to wish violence
against us. Thus when they do resort to violence we glorify God in our
imitation of Christ but also we further condemn them. Modern Evangelicals falling
afoul of the law are victims of political backlash and revenge... not
persecution. They live by the sword (in its various forms) and then are
offended when it is taken up by their enemies.
In addition to the issues of the Kingdom and Vocation I take
exception to the Lutheran Law-Gospel hermeneutic. I find it to be artificial,
contrived and the result of the particularly Lutheran understanding of
Justification by Faith Alone.
Once again in Reformed circles the Michael Horton/ Modern
Reformation/ Whitehorse Inn Radio and Westminster-West factions are closest to
the Lutheran view.
That said I strongly believe in a Law-Gospel distinction in
terms of Redemptive History. At this point we're not speaking of a
differentiation between commands and promise though that comes into play, but
instead a distinction between epochs and covenants in the form that God
structured the history and development of salvation.
Too often Covenant Theology is expressed in Monocovenantal
terms. The concept is used to unify the Bible but at the expense of the
distinctions and development and thus in some cases the fulfillment and
abrogation of previous types, shadows and symbols.
The Lutheran structure makes Justification the Centraldogma, the centerpiece of a
theological structure, the very heart of Christianity. It does this in concert
with a rather bogus interpretation of Church history. The Covenant view more
common in Reformed circles all too often makes Election or even Sovereignty the
Centraldogma. The doctrines
themselves are all worthy of praise to be sure but Scripture presents Christ as
the central focus of Scripture and it is through the lens of the Incarnation
that we are to understand salvation, the Kingdom as well as questions like the
relationship between the covenants. We cannot allow Justification to override
or trump the whole counsel of Scripture and/or impose a grid on it. At that
point the 'grid' is not the result of a Biblical hermeneutic but instead a
philosophical deduced system resulting from the central doctrine.
Christocentricity allows us to rightly read and relate the
various portions of Scripture, understand the nature of theological structure
and discourse and it helps us to place Salvation in various contexts of
continuity and discontinuity. We can understand the law-grace distinctions, the
numerous dynamisms between Old and New Covenants, the typological and didactic
frameworks of Redemptive-History, the limits of human reason and conception,
the two-fold nature of the Kingdom, life within it, the Christian life existing
in multiple tenses and tensions and the nature of saving faith.
Christocentricity also sharpens our focus with regard to the Eschaton and keeps
us from aberrations and distractions whether Dispensational or Dominionist.
Lutheranism has a different concept of Sola Scriptura. They
view it is a starting point, perhaps something of a restraint but its authority
is not absolute or comprehensive. They have a very different understanding of
the historico-theological narrative. They embrace Christendom and in many ways
the general historical development of Latin/Roman Christianity up to 1517. They
wanted to reform not break with Romanism. And yet their desire to reform was
even less than that of the 'Reformed' or Calvinist wing of the Reformation that
insisted on a much more penetrating and thorough evaluation and expurgation.
Though in many ways the Reformed also failed to cut out the
Roman cancer and I'm not speaking (as many would) at this point of
paedobaptism. Rather I am speaking of Sacralism and Scholasticism, both of
which quickly crept back into the newly formed Magisterial Reformation. And in
that context, yes, even Biblical doctrines like paedobaptism were subject to sacral
abuse.
Despite these criticisms there is much to appreciate about
conservative Lutheranism. An old friend of mine was raised in the LCMS and was
later ordained into that denomination. As a Missouri-Synod zealot he was always
somewhat critical of the Wisconsin Synod which LCMS members tend to view as
separatist and pietistic. One has to look into the formation of the LCMS to
understand some of this.
I'm afraid on many points I always found myself sympathising
more with the Wisconsin synod viewpoint. My friend was always very hostile to
Pietism but I never felt like he was giving it a fair assessment, or even
understanding it for that matter.
The LCMS has a reputation of worldliness and while I don't
doubt there are some godly folk in their ranks I think the label is probably a
fair one. Their particular spin on the doctrine of Justification and their
peculiar Law-Gospel hermeneutic have at times led to rank antinomianism.
If an LCMS congregation was my only option I would certainly
consider attending it though I would by no means agree with or appreciate much
of what was happening. Their liturgy focuses more on ritual than Word. Their
sermons tend to be brief and fairly weak. That said, they're strong on the
Sacraments, Amillennial, and for good or ill they are definitely free of
legalism.
Sometimes the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods are compared to
the relationship between the PCA and OPC. The PCA is broad and larger while the
OPC is very small and a bit more focused. That said, while I may in some ways
appreciate Sunday morning worship more in an OPC, on a practical level it's
probably easier to get along (when you're a little different) in the broader
more Evangelical PCA. I've been a member in both but I can also say that I have
no interest in attending either ever again.
As far as Issues Etc....
I check the show notes every day and if something strikes me
as interesting I download it and listen to it the next day. I do this maybe
once every couple of weeks. I keep coming back because the show can be
interesting and there's a little more thoughtfulness and nuance to their
positions and guests compared with what I often find. That said many of the
guests are bad, ill-informed and/or promoting error. Some are downright awful
and like the rest of the Christian Right and Christian Radio worlds there are
some guests and opinions that are just fraudulent. Obviously I take strong
exception to Ed Meese. I would also add figures like Alvin Schmidt, Robert
Spencer and Mark Hemingway. I often enjoy Terry Mattingly and find John W.
Montgomery to be interesting.
I often enjoy their criticisms of mainstream evangelicalism
and yet even while enjoying said criticisms I usually disagree with their take
as well.
It is a sometimes intelligent and informative but often
disappointing but more thoughtful and restrained form of Christian Right radio.