Two Kingdoms? This is an attempt to point why “Christian conservatives” have rendered themselves ineffective as a collective political group. There are many intersecting roots. I will try to maintain focus on the root that I will label “Two Kingdoms” theology. It is quite possibly the most entangled root when we dig into the reasons why the church has become increasingly impotent in the realm of politics. There are a few factions among Christians in america today when we consider their view on politics. The fact that there are substantial political/worldview differences among professing Bible believing Christ followers is a bit bewildering itself, but makes the problem of political effectiveness obvious. Saving time with all the details, the majority position is quite well aligned with the pharisees who were harshly rebuked by Jesus, then fatally judged in AD70. That is, seeking an unbiblical collusion of jurisdictions. That is, fighting to give power to the state that which is outside the scope of Biblical law. These are supposed Christians who prefer tens of thousands of new laws every year which change every time they come together and vote on them. Rather than the perfect, perfectly sufficient, and unchanging instructions given to them by their God. But I am getting ahead of myself. Two kingdoms theology- what is it? In short, it is the idea that what applies to the church stays in the church and has no bearing outside of the church. Or as a friend put it coming out of a backroom meeting after a pro-life banquet, “some people want to make sure we understand that what we heard from the speakers tonight cannot apply to how we vote.” In some other terms, it can be described as the kingdom of God pertains only to those inside the church, and that there is a “common kingdom” outside the church. How God interacts with that “common kingdom” has various opinions, but none of them have solid Biblical ground. One of many problems, perhaps what should be the most obvious, is that proponents of this idea do not think God has anything to say about how civil society or civil government should be set up and run. This, of course, is not true. This is an important topic to say the least. It is something that we see the consequences of, or application in nearly every issue that comes up around us. Like I said, it has many intertwined roots. The one that seems to be the most conjoined is actually the “glorious Gospel of the blessed God” itself. Just how big is the gospel? I would argue that while it most certainly includes the great gift of salvation, that is certainly not the gospel as it is presented in the entirety of scripture. It is “the gospel of the kingdom,” as repeated throughout the Bible. Our commission is to disciple the nations. To change the culture as the early church did. Not preserve pagan culture as modern missions do. Yes, nations are comprised of individuals, but individuals following two kingdoms beget nothing but logically schizophrenic, pietistic, hypocritical, patriotic statists. Yes, we can observe the logical ends of the two kingdoms heresy in real time, right here in these united states. God gave perfect instruction for the civil order. Was it just? Did God change? Are Christians better suited to live under pharaoh? Under a King? 1 Samuel 8 tells us a story of God letting them have an earthly king and the horrible sanctions that would fall on them for wanting an earthly king instead of God. Much like those who later cried “we have no king, but caesar” were judged for denying Christ. Also comes to mind is the Israelites tasting freedom, heading for the promise land, but wishing they could go back where food and drink was free and easy- they only needed to provide slave labor to a tyrant for most of their day. How about under a president elected in these united states? Does that look like God’s instructed civil order? We are told by the court historians that the federal head of these united states is organized based on a Biblical model. It looks much more like humanist Rome or Greece than anything instructed in the Bible. Why is it the righteous, patriotic, supposedly conservative Christian stance to throw out God’s instructions? There is a logical axiom attributed to Rushdoony that says “The god of a society can be determined by the source of their laws.” There was a moment in american history when that source changed from the God of the Bible to the god of humanism, “we the people.” This is moral standards, laws, and their sanctions, brought to you in an ever changing direction by a majority of voters. A majority who is educated by the state, in a worldview that benefits the state. But the two kingdom crowd does not think they should be involved in civil matters. That God’s perfect unchanging standards do not apply outside of the doors of the church. This is self-induced persecution. Yet they complain about it. While at the same time justifying that persecution with their eschatology. Christians should set the standards for cultural excellence, not allow those standards to be lowered by reducing the application of God’s word. Where the church goes, so society follows. The tyranny of the Welfare States under which we currently live is a direct outfall of “two kingdoms” theology. By setting up a false division between heavenly and secular matters, the Church has consistently mismanaged its wealth and abdicated its social responsibilities. Then, when the poor—even the poor within the Church—come into need, they are told, or it is assumed, that their needs shall be met by the civil order (which is presumably not Christian, or quasi-Christian at best). How’s it look for Christian charity when the Christians direct their own to the state for charity? And this, when the state gets its funds through theft to begin with? The reason why things like the recent health care debacle always eventually get passed—just as Social Security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps, and subsidies galore, galore—is because the Churches have consistently failed to meet these needs when they should. And they have failed because they never try. And they never try because they believe these things do not pertain to the function of the church. And they do not believe these things pertain to the function of the church because their theologians have assured them that the Church’s only job is to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. The Church is the “Heavenly Kingdom,” we are told. Everything thing else—all those “worldly” matters—pertains to the “Earthly Kingdom.” Thus, we have “Two Kingdoms,” and the two should never meet until Christ returns. Meanwhile, we have a world filled—and churches filled—with people who have needs: financial needs, health needs, debt needs, old age needs, etc., etc. These are all things addressed by both Old Testament law, and New Testament teaching (which is usually based on Old Testament law). But the “Two Kingdoms” mentality tells us that 1) Old Testament law no longer applies, except maybe the Ten Commandments in some vague moral sense, and 2) all social and civil matters will fall out according to God’s will in the realm of nature and under the rule of earthly governments. So they ignore the vast majority if not all of the Bible’s social teaching. Then they direct their people to the pagan Welfare State for social needs. So, for example, when Paul gives very clear directions to the Church on how to take care of needy widows, the Church today would largely ignore this teaching. If a Christian widow over sixty with no money, no family, and no prospects came to the church, what would the church do? Would it pour over 1 Timothy 5 for matters of principle? Would it be prepared to support her if necessary? Or would it assume she should live off of the State instead? For most, sad to say, the question of supporting her would not even arise. Today’s churches refuse to hold their political representatives, or even themselves, accountable to the Bible they teach from. They ignore laws that pertain to social issues, and abdicate their responsibility to the “other kingdom”—the State. But they still pass the plate. They still want the giving. They still dress finely and build enormous buildings. This is not bad per se, but the Church building and the pastors’ salaries are historically the greatest portions of the Churches’ budgets. And when the church grows, what do we do? We take in more money and build yet a bigger building, sometimes borrowing millions—thereby pledging future tithes to the building. Money is drained and drained for these purposes. And what return do we get on these investments? What stewardship? A building that sits empty up to six days a week. And should someone in the church turn up with long-term health, insurance, or dependency issues, they get directed to the extorting State for their help: “There’s no program here for that.” Yes, of course, we need the preaching of the “simple” gospel as well. But the church is much more. Preaching and communing must drive us to good works. If the church is only to emphasize preaching and sacraments, then how can it escape the censure of St. James as part of the “be ye warmed and filled” crowd? The devil can do as much. Without directing their people to do good works and to fund good works through their tithes, the Two-Kingdoms preachers are no better than thieves—an organized scheme of extortion to line their pockets and build bigger buildings while preaching sermons about why our funds should go to pay preachers and build buildings. This is organized crime—a Pulpit Mafia, Gangsters for Jesus. We need good works while walking in covenant with Christ. And what good works should these be? Coffee and donuts and small-talk after church service? I think James had in mind the giving of clothing and food to those among us who had need of it. We have work to do. I think Paul and the apostles had in mind the sort of society where economic freedom reigns, and where the law allows avenues for the poor among us to regain a foothold and become productive. And as a last resort, for the really destitute, the truly poor, they could find support. The church needs to take back what is has relegated to the state. It will probably take some sacrifice. It will take a lot of faith and vision. Most of all, it will take a lot of work and perseverance. Sacrifice, faith, vision, work, perseverance: what else could be more Christian? So why say it belongs in any other Kingdom? If you want to win elections you will need to cast down new age pessimistic eschatology and other various state serving doctrines, like two kingdoms rhetoric. Then pick up your Bibles, read and follow them without the baggage of those bad presuppositions. Then you will be able to correctly nominate representatives. Only then will you be able to begin to take back your ground with the voting booth.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:17:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015