The cited article by William B Evans provided a well-argued
and concise analysis of the question of Two Kingdom theology viewed from the
perspective of Reformed Confessionalism and as such provides a good opportunity
for some interaction and comment. Reading this essay alongside the work by
Evans will hopefully assist readers in understanding the nature of the issues
and just what is at stake.
Evans makes it sound as if Two Kingdom Theology is running
the gamut and is exercising wide-ranging influence within Reformed circles. I
see little to no evidence for this – quite the contrary. And as I've long
pointed out, the variety of Two Kingdom (2K) theology that has gained a little
traction is highly influenced by the likes of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). It is
not the Anabaptist or First Reformation variety but more akin to the Lutheran
Two Kingdoms view – which is more accurately described as One Kingdom in Two
Aspects, something wholly unacceptable to true Two Kingdom advocates. In other
words, the Two Kingdom theology that has limited popularity in Reformed circles
may reject overt transformationalism and the expectation of triumph – but it's
still highly affected by Dominionist thought and categories, and is therefore
unbiblical and unacceptable.
I cannot agree with Evans' framing of contemporary
Christianity in America. Constantinianism may be dead (and frankly in its
purest form is unappealing to Enlightenment-informed Evangelicals), but a
modified Kuyperian form lives on and despite the contradictions and nebulous
thinking under which it operates, is deeply and passionately held by the majority
of American Christians. What's the difference? The Kuyperian model argues for a
kind of preferential pluralism as opposed to a purely sacralist model akin to
what Theonomy or Catholic Integralism argues for. On that note, Theonomy is by
no means dead nor has it faded as Evans claims. It has permutated. I will grant
its fragmentation and modification has (from the standpoint of a purist) weakened
the movement in some respects but it is by no means waning. Ironically in
keeping with Right-wing cultural trends, a robust libertarian wing has sprung
up and apparently its advocates are unable to grasp that the two schools of
thought – Mosaic Law for Modern Society, and Jeffersonian Libertarianism are
diametrically opposed. The synthesis hasn't worked and has spawned a series of endless
and fruitless debates – often mired in readings and misreadings of American
history and jurisprudence. And yet the movement hasn't faded, instead it has
become more and more mainstream with some groups holding to a rather assertive
insistence of Mosaic general equity (that includes a 'literal' application when
deemed possible), and in other quarters Rushdoony's metanarrative regarding
Western culture continues to prevail with various groups engaged in what might
be called a strategic or tactical retreat with the long-term goal of
reassertion and the capturing of culture in the wake of a collapse. From the
ashes they will rise with their armies of Dominionist-worldview trained
offspring to capture the culture, or so they dream. Regardless, when I hear
hints and echoes of Dominionist thought and appeals for Mosaic Law to be
applied to America emanating even from the shallow teachers on Evangelical
radio – it's a sure sign of the larger movement's influence and even dominance.
Contrary to Evans, the defenders of Two Kingdom theology are not
merely concerned that the 'transformational efforts' have 'distracted' the
Church. Rather, they have completely overthrown the ethics and imperatives of
New Testament Christianity and transformed the Church into a mammon-worshipping,
Beast-riding whore. This in the post-war context is the rotten harvest of the
seeds planted by figures as diverse as Billy Graham, RJ Rushdoony, and Francis
Schaeffer. Misreading the Bible on a massive scale, Dominionism and its
transformationalist corollary have traded the cross for the sword and coin and
rejected the pilgrim-martyr call to take up the cross in service to a Kingdom
that is eschatological and heavenly, that is not of this world.
The world is not governed by natural law per se. The Van
Drunen project has been an unhelpful sideshow. The powers that be are ordained
by God. Natural Law exists but is always flawed and because man is fallen,
always strays into idolatry. It's not a Christian project to try and develop
it, flesh out its parameters, or even establish its philosophical basis in
order to help the pagans to apply it. That's a fruitless endeavour and
potentially just as distracting as something like Dominionism.
The nations are in service to the god of this world and are
servants of the prince of the power of the air – the other kingdom in a true
Two Kingdoms paradigm. In terms of Providence, even bestial powers and evil
rulers like Nero serve their purpose (as Paul argues) – just as Nebuchadnezzar
and Tiglath-Pileser did in the Old Testament. We could also include Cyrus the
Achaemenid but the discussion surrounding him requires nuance. Persia was a
Beast power as Daniel and John in Revelation make clear and yet there was
another layer of anticipatory typology at work with Cyrus – a point that has
generated no small degree of confusion as many falsely extrapolate from this redemptive-historical
symbolism a messianic role for the state.
Christians are citizens of both realms but are not answerable
to both in the same way – not for one moment. Paul contrasts the Christian
ethic and imperative with that of the state – the artificial chapter division
between Romans 12 and 13 has allowed transformationalists to break the stream
of Paul's argument. It's clear enough that the state serves its Providential as
opposed to covenantal purpose – one the Reformed and Evangelical movements seem
to largely reject as they vie for control. But even more poignant is their
rejection of Paul's contrasting imperatives (in chapter 12) that lay the
groundwork for what he says in Romans 13 – commands that clearly prohibit
Christian involvement in the role of the state. Only by setting aside the
Christian calling and profession can one wear the badge or judicial robe, and
take up the sword. Only by saying that you can live as a non-Christian during
your working day in order to fulfill an office, can such a path even be
entertained. A great deal of this confusion stems from a confusion of Christ's
realm and reign – one authority being Providential, another being Covenantal. They
do not represent the same interests and purpose during the course of this age. An
eschatological Kingdom, a Kingdom of Heaven, the present unconsummated reality
results in a duality, a tension that will only be resolved when Christ returns –
a point made by Christ in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares. Sacralist models
including Kuyper's flawed dictum regarding 'every square inch' obscure and
often downplay or even obliterate this essential distinction.
Such over-realized eschatological thinking results in
triumphalism, but the only kingdom it produces is a counterfeit or as I often
argue a new Tower of Babel topped by a cross. In terms of John's visions in the
Apocalypse, this imagery is rendered as a Bride-turned-Whore riding on the
Beast or the lamb speaking with the voice of the Dragon – both expressions of false
Christianity and apostasy.
There is no fatigue to be found in principled Two Kingdom thinking.
Indeed, the conscious posture of war and the warfare mindset are ever at the
fore – but it is of a very different nature than what Evans seems able to
grasp. In addition to 2 Corinthians 10 and its statements regarding the nature
of our warfare, it needs to be stated that as Paul draws a comparison in 1 Corinthians
10 between the history of Israel and that of the Church, we are left to
conclude (from this passage and others) that the enemies of God's people come
in different types. There is the Bestial threat from the world, the various
Satanic empires and so forth, but the more immediate and pressing threat always
comes from within and with it, the
threat of capitulation to the world, idolatry, apostasy, and so forth – the
conflation of Jehovah worship with the values, symbols, rites, and ideologies
of the world. It was the plague of Old Testament Israel, it's always in the
background of the apostolic period, and it bears out in Church history as well.
Ultimately we are led to understand that the so-called
nations and empires of Christendom are in reality (and in the end) far greater
threats to the cause of truth and the Kingdom, than the overtly anti-Christian
polities. They can kill the body, but they cannot destroy the soul in the way
that something like the Holy Roman, British, or American Empires can. And yet
the compromised Christendom model will always identify the primary and most
pressing enemy as Islam, the Left, or something outside and oppositional. These
are dangerous distractions.
Endlessly promoted and celebrated in our day, so-called worldview
teaching is the result of a synthesis, a syncretism between broad doctrinal and
ethical strokes drawn from Scripture (often in a haphazard and self-serving manner)
and worldly systems of thought and knowledge by means of philosophical
inference and deduction. The result is not a Biblical worldview, but a hybrid corruption
of Biblical teaching. The Bible is sufficient for Christians to discern how to
live and think but at the same time it does not provide solutions for problems
and systems that cannot be fixed in this age. The answer to the world's
problems is the gospel and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit which
cannot be effected by legislation or cultural endeavour. Contrary to the flawed
views of Common Grace advocated by the likes of Abraham Kuyper we cannot work
with or alongside the pagans in order to forge some kind of Christian cultural
order. Unbelievers do not have the Holy Spirit and as such cannot help us build
the Kingdom. The end result is merely the corruption of Christian truth.