Jordan Cooper of Just and Sinner recently lectured on some of
the significant differences between the Reformed and Lutheran versions of Two
Kingdom Theology. The Reformed variety usually associated with Westminster
Seminary West in Escondido California is often conflated with the Lutheran
variety and this troubles Cooper. He wants to set the record straight. This has
probably been furthered by the fact that to many, Westminster West also has (more
or less) embraced a Lutheran Soteriology and understanding of sola fide.
This is a generalisation. The seminary does not formally
advocate these positions nor does the entire faculty hold to them. Yet, these
positions are indeed held and propagated by a small group of figures who are
associated with the school and thus the school is (rightly or wrongly) linked
with these teachings.
Cooper was fair in his assessment of Westminster Two Kingdom
theology. He equated it with a frequent epithet known as R2K or Radical Two Kingdom theology. He was
actually incorrect at this point. Because R2K is usually pinned on a more Anabaptist
variety of Two Kingdom theology, akin to what is advocated by this author. From
Cooper's perspective as well as some Theonomists the Westminster West (or
Escondido) variety is more or less a
reconstitution of Anabaptist theology... but this is patently untrue.
Westminster West's Two Kingdom theology breaks at points with
the Lutheran variety and is certainly somewhat hostile to Theonomy and yet its
retention of Kuyperian Dominionism places it much closer to the Lutheran and
Theonomist understandings of the Kingdom than it does to the Anabaptist.
Westminster's version of Two Kingdoms is still very much pro-culture formation
and while not Transformationalist in a de
jure sense, from the standpoint of 'radical' Two Kingdom theology it
represents a de facto rejection of
Two Kingdoms.
The Anabaptist position if we are to accept that unfortunate
label would identify both the Lutheran and Westminster West (or Escondido)
positions as being One Kingdom with different nuances and not genuine
expressions of Biblical Two Kingdom theology. From my standpoint it's just a
diluted (and thus somewhat improved) One Kingdom or Sacralist understanding of
the Kingdom.
Cooper is to be commended in some aspects of his presentation
and argument. He does a great job demonstrating the actual Sacralist (One
Kingdom) nature of Lutheran so-called Two Kingdom theology, a point I've been
trying to make for many years. He intimately weds it to the Magisterial
Reformation. His proper explanation of Lutheran Two Kingdom theology
demonstrates that the charges made by Theonomists regarding its equivalence
with the Anabaptist version are completely false.
For example whenever the Theonomists wish to attack what they
call Radical Two Kingdom theology they will pin the indifference and
acquiescence of the German population in the 1930s on their embrace of Lutheran
Two Kingdom theology. Two Kingdom theology led to separatism (it is argued) and
passivity. And thus the German Church and people let the Nazis come to power.
And then when Westminster Two Kingdom advocates point to
Lutheranism as an example of a Two Kingdom Reformation heritage, and that their
view is not guilty of novelty, the Theonomists will suddenly argue that Lutheran Two Kingdoms is more akin to
their own Sacralist and Established Church position. They will then argue the Escondido variety is actually a version
of Radical Two Kingdom theology,
which is (as mentioned above) also a false assertion. As usual the Theonomists
have little interest in the truth of the matter and wish instead to destroy
their intra-denominational opponents. Their historical theology is politicised
and that's something that always needs to be recognised when dealing with the
Christian Right.
The politicisation of theology can be frustrating but Cooper
makes it exceedingly clear. The Lutheran view has a very positive attitude to
the state and in reality its model can be described as One Kingdom in two spheres... very much like the
Kuyperian model embraced by Westminster West.
This further demonstrates a point I have often made that it
was the Sacral Theology of German Lutheranism that taught moral complacency,
compliance and social conformity. They lost their sense of antithesis and
equated German Kultur with
Christianity. Hitler's nationalism and anti-communism were sentiments they
readily identified with. The German Church didn't embrace Nazism due to
passivity. Rather they (speaking in general terms) actively embraced it, viewing nationalism and political
anti-communism (not to mention anti-Semitism) as expressions of piety and
Christian culture.
True advocates of Two Kingdom theology are governed by
antithesis and would never be taken in by or support such agendas. This is not
to blame or slander Lutherans for what happened under the Third Reich but it
helps to understand why an ostensibly 'Christian' nation would embrace a figure
like Hitler and the agenda of his regime.
While Cooper decries the equation of Westminster Two Kingdom
theology with Lutheranism they are closer than he realises. He clearly
misunderstands the social posture of the Westminster understanding of Two
Kingdoms. They are not retreatists in the least and in fact heartily embrace
Kuyper's model of Sphere Sovereignty. They are careful to not conflate the
Church and State but their ideas regarding separation are nothing like the
Anabaptist position.
It must be further stated the Lutheran distinctions between
Left and Right Kingdom, let alone their entire framework of Law and Gospel are
largely false. These categories as they express them are convenient fictions, contrived
and imposed on Scripture as a means of maintaining the coherence of their
speculative theological system. That said, these positions are not too distant
from what some at Westminster West advocate. The nomenclature differs but the
concepts are fairly close and often overlap.
I continue to be baffled by the charges of Evangelical
isolationism which Cooper repeats. These are after all the people who just made
Donald Trump's election possible. Christian radio and literature are absolutely
saturated with Dominion theology and the need to engage if not transform culture.
As usual, it is the Church that has been transformed by the culture. It is the
consequence of such a defective and dangerous theology.
I did have a good laugh about 47:00 minutes in. One of the
questioners seemed to utterly lack an understanding of the issues at stake. I
laughed out loud when I discovered the inquirer was none other than Gene Edward
Veith. A professor at Patrick Henry College he serves as the chief advocate for
Dominion Theology and Sacralism in Lutheran circles and perhaps something of a
bridge figure between the Lutheran and Reformed worlds. He's viewed as an
expert commentator on culture and vocation and yet in reality is a blind guide,
ill informed, and ignorant of both Western culture and its intellectual
history. I've responded to portions of his pseudo-intellectualism in some other
pieces. I'm afraid he's not in Cooper's league but he remains quite popular.
Every Missouri Synod Lutheran I've known seems to revere him and recommend his
deeply flawed books.
Cooper consigns so-called 'radical' Two Kingdom theology to a
manifestation of American individualist culture. This is perhaps his weakest
point and again shows his failure to understand both the Kuyperian aspect to
Westminster's thought, let alone the Anabaptist version of Two Kingdom theology
which actually antedates the 16th century and the Anabaptist
movement itself. This was the theological position of figures like Chelcicky
and the Waldensians. It's not a fruit of modern American culture. The rejection
of Constantinian and Sacralist presuppositions did not begin with the
Enlightenment.
Rather I would argue the old and now obsolete version of
Fundamentalist Separatism (wed to Dispensationalism) presented a sort of
American individualist disengagement. Even that's a stretch but I think a
better case could be made. Of course that variety of Fundamentalism was also
pacifist and anti-patriotic. Sadly it largely died and disappeared with World
War II. The old J Vernon McGee maxim of not 'polishing brass on a sinking ship'
is not advocated by anyone in the contemporary Evangelical or Fundamentalist
scene and it's certainly not the view of Westminster West.
He falls into many of the typical caricatures and
mischaracterisations of so-called radical Two Kingdom theology but he's hardly
alone. In this absurd piece RC Sproul Jr. also accuses R2K of endangering the
Church's prophetic voice.
Ironically it is the One Kingdom Theology of Sproul Jr.,
Westminster West, Cooper and Confessional Lutheranism and most certainly
Theonomy which cause the Church to lose its prophetic voice. They seem to think
in order to possess prophetic standing one must be integrated into the
political order. Somehow being outside it delegitimises your testimony. They
are political animals and cannot think beyond its categories.
Of course this thinking has directly led to the Christian
embrace of Donald Trump. History repeats itself and the Church is not exempt
especially when led by such blind guides. Many of them lament this turn of
events but in their folly, they laid the groundwork for it.
There are also disputes which Cooper only touched on
regarding the place of Natural Law in terms of governing society. Or to put it
differently what is the standard Christians should use when dealing with the
application of Christian ethics to the state? Westminster/Escondido has grasped
the profound difficulties in trying to apply a Covenant document to a
non-Covenantal entity and thus has turned to Natural Law. This has especially
upset many in the Reformed world due to the embrace of Cornelius Van Til's
version of Presuppositional Apologetics which is quite hostile to the idea of
Natural Law as an authority for ethics, let alone the possibility of
constructing a Natural Theology that doesn't immediately succumb to idolatry.
Theonomy's 'By What Standard' argument is guilty of begging
the question, but I'm afraid Westminster West in embracing the same flawed
premise of the Theonomic position is forced to justify their standpoint by
turning to inferential and subjective arguments that are unlikely to gain
traction in the contemporary Dominionist climate that insists all
civilisational questions and paradigms are answered in Scripture. This view
could be called Hyper- or Extra-Covenantal Sufficiency. The truth is that
Theonomy and Dominionism engage in the same sort of philosophical speculation
and when they form systems that 'seem' coherent with Scriptural principles they
think (wrongly) that their positions are thus Biblical and equal to Scripture
itself. Their system is not Biblical in the least, but is instead a coherent
construct based on their subjective presuppositions. It's philosophically sound
but does not reflect Scripture and is thus just as flawed as any Natural Law
construct.
Being a Lutheran, Cooper has little problem with Natural Law,
nor does he seem to find difficulty with the state enforcing Christian dictates.
To put it simply if you believe the state should enforce
blasphemy laws or require Church attendance etc... you're not advocating Two
Kingdom theology, you are in fact a Sacralist. And Cooper proves conclusively
that Lutheran Two Kingdom theology is Sacralist at its core and foundations.
This is at the heart of the Magisterial Reformation. This view was embraced by
the Lutherans, Reformed and of course the Anglican Churches. Almost alone the
Anabaptists stood against this error and thus took up the torch of some of the proto-protestant forebears
who also maintained this testimony during the centuries of Papal power.
In addition to completely misunderstanding the origins and
underpinnings of a non-Sacralist version of Two Kingdom theology it is no great
surprise that Cooper all but proclaims his embrace of Constantinianism in his
acceptance of and even endorsement of the Medieval order. Contrary to his
assumptions I would argue the vast majority of people living under Roman
Catholic Christendom were not Christians and thus the order cannot be described
as such for this reason alone let alone its unsustainability as a doctrine
derived by means of New Testament exegesis. As I've said many times the concept
of Christendom is bogus from start to finish. Too call a culture or nation
Christian is to necessarily redefine the
term. You must employ extra-Biblical frameworks and philosophical speculation
to conceptualise, let alone flesh out the term. It's not a Scriptural concept.
This of course destroys, nay decimates the Lutheran
meta-narrative of Church history. These questions have to be resolved and
common ground has to be found before any kind of rapprochement can take place.
And to be honest, the gulf is wide.
But from the standpoint of one who holds to Biblical Two
Kingdom theology, what Cooper calls 'radical', the gulf between Westminster
West and Confessional Lutheranism is almost insignificant.
That said, both of these erroneous forms of Two Kingdom
theology offer some hope. They both stand in contrast to the Absolute Sacralism
that is ascendant in Reformed circles and is increasingly being embraced by
other leaders associated with Evangelicalism and the Christian Right. While
rigid or traditional Theonomy has been largely rejected, the movement has
morphed and metastasised. Cooper's understanding of the Kingdom will provide
some (albeit limited) restraint to the worst forms of that impulse.
The Westminster variety possesses another aspect Cooper did
not touch upon and I will do so only briefly. The Westminster Confession was modified
in the late 18th century to accommodate the new formation of the
American Republic and the principle of Disestablishment. While some might call
this purely pragmatic it in fact represents something larger and that is the
Christian embrace of Classical Liberalism.
Some argue (erroneously) that this is a fruit of the Reformation. I will agree that it is a result of the Reformation, or came about
due to forces generated by the Reformation. It is a grave error to believe
Classical Liberalism represents an outworking of New Testament or even
Reformation theology. As I've said before it may be advantageous as a Christian
to live in a democracy but the concept itself is not a Biblical one. American
Presbyterianism took a turn in the late 18th century and abandoned
certain aspects of its Magisterial-Sacralist heritage in its modification of
the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith. The history of
American political Christianity is one of contradictions and internal
conflicts. These contradictions merely simmered beneath the surface during the
period of social consensus.
When the consensus broke is a question of debate. In one
sense it was certainly shattered by the Civil War but despite the questions
surrounding that conflict in many ways the general consensus continued right up
to the turn of the 20th century and perhaps even through the World
Wars. The questions were on the table but the contradictions were not pressed
until the post-War period. Since then, the contradictions of Confessional
Protestantism embracing Classical Liberalism have risen to the surface and we
see a wide array of positions and postures. Some Christians are reverting to almost
'Throne and Altar' anti-modernist positions in order to defend their cultural
assumptions and narratives. Others continue to defend Classical Liberal ideals
and have worked more assiduously to synthesise these ideals with New Testament
exegesis. Many have engaged in historical revisionism and have read Classical
Liberal ideas into the Reformation and in other cases have transformed the
American Founders into Throne and Altar flavoured conservatives.
There are additional questions regarding the nature of the
Enlightenment, when it took a bad turn etc... These questions also play into
one's understanding of Classical Liberalism, one's narrative regarding the
progress or deformation of American culture etc.
The Westminster West variety of Two Kingdom theology is
largely favourable to Classical Liberalism or at least seems to accept the
notion that it is an outgrowth and positive consequence of Reformation thought.
If Cooper wants to identify an American aspect to this theology then he would
need to address the similar influences affecting Confessional Lutheranism.
Because when I listen to GE Veith, let alone Todd Wilken's radio programme I'm
hearing these same varieties of synthesis and contradiction.
The dilemma for the Confessionalist is how to reconcile these
modern intellectual trends with their deuterocanonical authorities and
requirements of subscription. Though not a few Presbyterian hardliners decry
the 18th century redaction to Westminster Confession, it gives the
Escondido faction a historical leg to stand. Confessional Lutheranism does not
and thus their embrace of Classical Liberalism's concepts of the individual,
reason, property, economics and the state are without warrant. They are instead
manifestations of the Aufklärung.