The Mainstream Two Kingdoms Doctrine: Justin Taylor at the Gospel Coalition
In a thoughtful blog post at the Gospel Coalition (HT: Darryl Hart) Justin Taylor describes the appropriate Christian attitude towards culture and politics in terms of the two kingdoms doctrine:
We are dual citizens, responsible and active members of both God’s spiritual kingdom and earthly kingdom. And if we seek to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and strength—and to love our neighbor as ourselves—then we should care to some degree about politics and elections and the role of government in our land.
Taylor reminds his readers of the way in which the two kingdoms tension runs throughout the Scriptural record.
The apostle Paul once warned that “no soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits” (2 Tim. 2:4), and he insisted that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). This sounds like a single citizenship with only a heavenly zip code.
However, the same apostle Paul also declared that he was “a citizen of no obscure city” (that is, Tarsus) and avoided torture by appealing to his Roman citizenship, which gave him certain rights and prevented certain actions from the Roman authorities (Acts 21:39; 22:25-29). Paul knew that his fundamental identity was “hidden with God in Christ” and that he was to set his mind on “things that are above, not on things that are on earth” (Col. 3:1-3), but he also knew that he had earthly obligations and rights and that they were not insignificant.
Or, we can ask: Which city should we care about?
“Here we have no lasting city” (Heb. 13:14). Like Abraham, we look “forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10).
And yet, as “sojourners and exiles (1 Pet. 2:11) we are commanded to “seek the welfare of the city . . . and pray to the LORD on its behalf” (Jer. 29:7).
And so the paradox goes.
Taylor helpfully points out that ultimately evangelism is more important than politics, the spiritual kingdom more important than the earthly. But he notes that most Christians do and should care about both. In fact, Darryl Hart’s fair quibbles about priorities aside, I find that Taylor may overemphasize the call on Christians to evangelize. Taylor writes, “If you have to choose between evangelism and politics, choose evangelism. Saving an eternal soul is more important than fixing a temporal need.” I think it would be better for Taylor to put the Christian call to evangelism in the context of vocation. For some Christians politics is a calling of God, and they ought to do their best to remain faithful in that vocation, mindful that their politics should be an occasion for others to ask them for a reason for the hope that is within them.
I think Taylor gets the formulation quite right in his closing paragraph. If only in the sense that his very concept of the secular is shaped by his understanding of the gospel and of the word of God, even Darryl should agree with this statement:
There are more important things in life than politics. It’s easy to become an idolatry. But it’s also easy to be too apathetic. As the Lord leads, let us commit to letting our politics be shaped by the gospel and informed by the word of God as we prayerfully work to become informed and to fulfill our roles, seeking the good of the city even as we wait for the city to come.
Posted on October 8, 2012, in Politics, Two Kingdoms, Uncategorized and tagged Darryl Hart, Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor. Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.
You make the point that Paul was a citizen of Tarsus who appealed to his Roman citizenship to avoid torture. In the same paragraph you say, “but he also knew that he had earthly obligations and rights and that they were not insignificant.” I see Paul asserting his rights, but where is he saying anything about “earthly obligations”?
Later you quote Jeremiah 29.7, “We are commanded to ‘seek the welfare of the city . . . and pray to the LORD on its behalf’”. Praying for leaders is good, but where do you get a mandate for political activism here, especially political activism by ministers and churches? Jeremiah was writing to Jewish exiles, not the Christian church.
What do you mean by “mainstream”? Are you trying to say that Hart and Van Drunen are not mainstream? Since when do Reformed people seek to be mainstream?
You say “For some Christians politics is a calling of God, and they ought to do their best to remain faithful in that vocation, mindful that their politics should be an occasion for others to ask them for a reason for the hope that is within them.” Are you talking about people who hold office or work for politicians here? I have no objection to that. If you are talking about self-appointed political activists who think their “calling” is to rally the church to a particular candidate or cause that is another matter.
Is it a quibble to wonder what it means to “have our politics shaped by the gospel”? This seems like a version of the popular notion to “live out the gospel,” a formulation that tends to betray a basic confusion of law and gospel. It sounds pious enough, and it’s not to say that Taylor doesn’t make some fair points, but if this formulation is quite right then one has to wonder how much cover is being given to sloppiness. And lest this seems trifling, it does seem to me that this sort of sloppiness is what tends to be behind much of cultural and political Christianity.
Not to mention, the concluding formulation seems to make absolutely no room for general relevation to inform civil life (its very purpose). It seems like general revelation is swallowed whole by special revelation. More ammunition for cultural-political Christianity.
Hi Erik,
Some of your questions pertain to Taylor’s piece, so I cannot answer them for him
Obviously my title is intended to be a little provocative. The point was simply that those who are trying to identify the two kingdoms doctrine with a certain seminary or individual are wrong to do so. Many Reformed and Christian theologians find the need to articulate the two kingdoms doctrine when trying to make sense of Christian cultural and political engagement. They don’t all agree on every jot and tittle, but it is nevertheless evident that the two kingdoms doctrine is much more necessary than some make it out to be.
On your last paragraph, I am talking about the former, not the latter, as I hope you can tell from some previous posts …
Zrim, remember that Taylor’s post was not intended to be a theological or ethical treatise. You ask some good questions, and they need to be asked. But there is nothing about Taylor’s formulation that is inherently problematic. Even Hart would agree that our political engagement should be shaped by the gospel, insofar as our very understanding of the concept of the secular derives from the gospel. Even Hart would agree that the word of God shapes our politics because it is the word itself that teaches us about natural law.
I realize these sorts of points often get lost in the rhetoric, but my point here was to demonstrate that the two kingdoms doctrine is much more broadly held than is often thought, even if not everyone agrees on the particular points of application. The discussion should not be, “do we believe in a two kingdoms doctrine?” but “What does a biblical two kingdoms doctrine tell us about cultural and political engagement?”
Make sense?
Matt, I understand that Taylor’s post was not intended as a theological or ethical treatise. But it does seem to me that were a better grasp of law and gospel behind the simple sketch we wouldn’t hear things about the gospel informing civil life at the expense of general revelation.
I’m not in the habit of speaking for others, but I do have a hard time hearing an Old Life-y ring to Taylor’s concluding sentiments. Still, if there are such rings, I’d have to keep my hand up despite who in particular is ding-ding-dinging.
And I understand the question involves the latter question more than the former. That’s my own point here. I happen to think that since Augustine everybody holds some form of a two kingdoms doctrine. What the natures of the kingdoms are and how they relate to each other is where we tend to diverge. And I think there is a 2k advocacy that just speaks better than others. Taylor, to the extent that his words here reflect a 2k advocacy, doesn’t tend to fall into that category. In a word, if politics is a care of provisional life and thus aligns with law then it isn’t at all clear what it means to have our politics be shaped by gospel.
MT, “yes” to the idea of vocation – some may be steeped in politics, others may choose another emphasis for their lives. Both will see the difference between the two and maintain distinctions.
But then you speak of “our political engagement should be shaped by the gospel.” I don’t even know what this means. It sounds like “our personal ethics should be shaped by thoughts of cute kittens.”
Mikel, this is a sincere question because I don’t think I understand you.
You wrote: “But then you speak of ‘our political engagement should be shaped by the gospel.’ I don’t even know what this means. It sounds like ‘our personal ethics should be shaped by thoughts of cute kittens.’”
Is the objection to the phrase “shaped by the gospel” as opposed to something like “shaped by the Scriptures”? Or alternatively, is the problem with the verb “shaped” which, I grant, is pretty vague?
I can understand how someone might argue that “the Gospel” is only a subset of a much broader category of Scriptural teaching. If that’s what confuses you I think I get your point.
If not, I’m still confused.
Surely we can know much more about what the Scriptures teach than about what cute kittens may be thinking. God’s Word was not given in indistinct meows but rather the common language of the people to whom it was given.
Mikelmann, given that a few of you have found this phrase problematic, let me try to offer a brief, Scriptural explanation. Colossians 1:17 tells us that in Christ all things exist. Nothing exists apart from the one who died, was raised, and ascended into heaven. Ephesians 1 tells us he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, over all rule and authority both in this age and in the age to come. That means that not only does nothing exist apart from Christ, but even civil magistrates are under his authority. To allow our political engagement to be shaped by the gospel is to allow it to be shaped by this basic reality. Now, we need to ask ourselves what that means. In my view, it means certain things about limits placed on magistrates, the authority of natural law, the nature of secularity (i.e., being limited to this age), etc.
But to say that our political engagement, or anything else that we do, should not be shaped by the gospel, to me amounts to the theological denial of the lordship of Christ, which is what both Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1 are concerned about. Christians are to do all things in Christ and as unto the Lord, as Paul says in numerous places. That’s what we’re talking about here.
It does worry me that some people seem to find this problematic, given the clear teaching of the New Testament on the point. But I understand that many people have taken these ideas and abused them, whether in the form of the social gospel, liberation theology, or whatever. Nevertheless, I think we need to reclaim the biblical language from those who have abused it, not abandon it to them.
I hope that helps.
MT and DTM, MT explained “gospel” to include the following:
“Colossians 1:17 tells us that in Christ all things exist. Nothing exists apart from the one who died, was raised, and ascended into heaven. Ephesians 1 tells us he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, over all rule and authority both in this age and in the age to come. That means that not only does nothing exist apart from Christ, but even civil magistrates are under his authority. To allow our political engagement to be shaped by the gospel is to allow it to be shaped by this basic reality. Now, we need to ask ourselves what that means. In my view, it means certain things about limits placed on magistrates, the authority of natural law, the nature of secularity (i.e., being limited to this age), etc.”
My problem is with the vagueness of “gospel” in this context. If we speak of preaching the gospel, there will be some variation in understanding from person to person but there are parameters on the term that ensure its usefulness. But used in the present context, “gospel” has the feel of a piece of rhetoric that is designed to situate onself within the evangelical stream with an upbeat vibe (hence cute kittens). So it’s a comfort word. But when others use “gospel” in this context, they aren’t thinking about natural law, the nature of secularity, or Christ ruling through magistrates. So we shake hands on the word while meaning very different things when we say the word.
This helps.
I think we all can concur that discussion is not helped when people use the same words but mean different things by them.
I spent enough time being raised in liberal church life to understand full well that such phrases as “bringing the kingdom of God to bear on this question” mean very different things in the mouths of some preachers than what their congregations are hearing. Too many people get lulled to sleep by good words being redefined. Of course, I’m not trying to accuse anyone of liberalism here, just pointing out the extremes to which language can confuse rather than clarify.
Definitions and distinctions matter.
Matt, the push back on the “politics being shaped by the gospel” is not out of a denial that Jesus is Lord over all things. It is out of an affirmation that he is Lord over all things in two different ways. He rules the world by law, the church by gospel. Politics are no more shaped by gospel then the church is by law. Maybe some want to say that the church is ruled by law, but then politics would have to be ruled by gospel. And the upshot of all of it is elders who punish and sheriffs who forgive. But I’d rather have my elders forgive and my sheriff lock up.
And I’m not sure others have taken these ideas and abused them so much as worked them out consistently. I mean, if the gospel is supposed to inform my task as a judge then my job is not so much to punish law-breakers as it is to urge them unto repentance. So why is there a sword in my hand?
Zrim, I think we may have some difference on terminology here. It is far too simplistic to say that the world is ruled by law and the church by the gospel. It is obviously a reality of the gospel that Christ rules over all things, and so while the regeneration of the gospel (i.e., the spiritual kingdom) is only realized in the body of believers (i.e., the church), the gospel nevertheless holds definitive claims over all of life. On the other hand, while the civil use of the law exists in the world, even the church constantly uses the first use of the law to bring confession of sins and repentance, and it emphasizes the law of Christ as the rule for the Christian life (or the third use of the law).
To put it simply, the danger of trying to put law in one category and the gospel in another is that you ignore the different meanings these words have. It is true that certain people have abused or worked out certain true doctrines in problematic ways, but it is just as true that in reaction to this others have refused to affirm what Scripture clearly teaches, and ended up in just as problematic territory.
Mikelmann, I basically agree with your last point. But it is evident to me that every single Christian doctrine and truth has been abused. That does not mean we should jettison all the language and truth of Scripture. It means we should reclaim it, and teach its true meaning.
Thank you for your comments, Matt.
ZRim’s formulation (which is not just his, of course) which makes a radical contrast between law and gospel is a significant part of why the people with whom I talk object to “Two Kingdoms” theology.
More could be said but you’ve pointed out some of the problems.
That may be good Lutheranism. I’m not yet convinced, but I’m open to argumentation on the point — conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans with whom I speak react rather negatively to “Two Kingdoms” Reformed articles I’ve shown them, while acknowledging that there are similarities between confessional Lutheranism and the things to which I object in “Two Kingdoms” Reformed writings.
However, it most emphatically is **NOT** good Calvinism given the Reformed emphasis on church discipline and the use of the law as a rule of gratitude.
Matt and DTM, my point about one Lord using two different ways to rule isn’t to neglect the three uses. The church certainly employs the law, but that seems different from being ruled by it, as different, perhaps, as disciplining is from punishing.
And DTM, just in case you’re hinting, Fesko has adequately shown that Lutheranism affirms the third use every bit as much as the Reformed:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/fesko-on-the-third-use-in-lutheranism/
I know I’m late to the party, but I’ve been looking at the idea of “two Kingdoms” for a little while so I guess that’s how I wound up here…
One quick point-
It was stated above that the Apostle Paul made use of his Roman citizenship to avoid “torture” and assuredly imprisonment at the hands of Jewish officials.
This is a fair and accurate assessment based on the Scriptural record. Paul utilized EXISTING law to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit which would lead him ultimately to Rome.
However, what is glaringly absent from any of the Epistles or from the New Testament in its entirety is anyone-Paul included, getting sidetracked from their primary purpose of “we preach Christ and Him crucified” in order to interact at a political level in any way shape or form. To suggest so is disingenuous in my opinion and is nowhere backed up in the “New Covenant” mission and methodology of the Church.
The most antagonistic intercourse recorded of a follower of Christ interacting with a political figure as far as I can tell is John the Baptist calling out Herod on his sin with his brother’s wife. And this account had nothing to do with “reformation” but everything to do with God’s coming judgment and indictment through His prophet John. Paul’s interaction with Felix and other Roman officials had NOTHING to do with political reformation and social change. Paul’s meeting had one single purpose-to “preach Christ and Him crucified.” No, either I’m a completely blind idiot or I’m not…but in my opinion the simple examples above are enough to convince me that it is a waste of God’s investment in my life to pursue anything like social/political reformation at the cost of preaching the word-in season and out.
I’ve also come to the opinion that this issue is most likely a “non-issue” in countries that have no “freedom” in their political systems. It seems to be symptomatic of US Christians who have been suckled on the Constitution and have grown up with an attitude of entitlement of “rights” unknown to our apostolic forefathers. It is this fact more than anything else that has lead to a concept of “two Kingdoms” and our place in them.
Anyway…it’s a great discussion that should cause us all to ponder just what our involvement in the world should be…
Thanks for the chance to share…
Anthony
Pingback: Matthew Tuininga on Justin Taylor (and D.G. Hart) on Two Kingdoms « Literate Comments