Part 2 on the Two Kingdoms at Reformation 21
Reformation 21 has kindly published part 2 of my series on the two kingdoms doctrine (Part 1 can be found here). Here are the first few paragraphs:
In the various political theological debates that have raged across the Reformed tradition over the centuries, virtually every group and every theologian has claimed the support of the legacy of John Calvin. When English Puritans and Elizabethan bishops clashed over the royal supremacy in sixteenth century England both sides claimed the support of John Calvin’s two kingdoms doctrine for their position. In the early twentieth century it became fashionable for liberal scholars to claim that Calvin’s theology of culture was one of “Christ transforming culture,” claiming that theology as a precedent for the social gospel. Resisting this emphasis were those theologians and pastors who picked up on Calvin’s repeated contrast between earthly things and the heavenly life to argue for radical discontinuity between the coming kingdom and life in this world. In the debates regarding theonomy both those who supported the continuing relevance of the Torah’s penal code and those who rejected it found support for their positions in Calvin’s various arguments on civil punishment and natural law.
Given this background, it is no wonder that Calvin has become a battleground in the controversy over the two kingdoms. Yet, as with so many of these controversies, it is both anachronistic and impossible to try to fit Calvin into the contemporary two kingdoms debate. The best we can do is to understand what the reformer himself taught about the two kingdoms, how he fit the doctrine into his broader theology, and to what extent we find it helpful to us today.
Read the whole thing here.
Posted on October 22, 2012, in Calvin, Church Government, Two Kingdoms and tagged Natural Law, political kingdom, social gospel, spiritual kingdom, theonomy. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
HI Matt,
As usual you’ve demonstrated a level and balanced approach to this important doctrine and I very much look forward to your third installation where you will explain the two kingdoms doctrine as taught in scripture. I’ve benefitted so much from VanDrunen’s LIG2K book and your work is a faithful continuation of that discussion. In my understanding this is critical to preserve the purity of the gospel, to enable to church to fulfill it’s calling and to enable believers to heartily serve their neighbors in the civil sphere.
So much of the debate has devolved into uncharitable caricature of one’s opponents. All the dust thrown in the air on both sides makes it difficult to discern the truth and your essays are providing some basic clarity – at least on a fair representation of the two-kingdoms doctrine.
An uncompromising yet irenic approach among brothers who disagree is so important and I appreciate your example here. I hope both sides will pay attention to both the content and the demeanor you display.
While I don’t have the time nor intellect to meaningfully engage in full online discussions, I really appreciate following your blog and encourage you to keep up the good work.
Dan
P.S. A few years ago you exhorted a couple of times at our little URC church in Loveland, Colorado & we enjoyed some conversations together at that point. May the Lord continue to bless you & your family in your endeavors.
Thanks Matt. Can you clarify what you meant by the label “neo-Anabaptist” in your essay?
I appreciate your attempt to press the discussion further. I consider myself 2K, but strongly reject the inconsistent “natural law” approach of DVD – it’s creating tremendous and unnecessary barriers to the rest of what he and others have to say.
Brandon, is there a particular quotation in the essay to which you are referring? Usually when I use the label neo-Anabaptist I am thinking of contemporary figures like Stanley Hauerwas or Shane Claiborne, people who have appropriated Anabaptist pacifism but with significant differences.
I’m intrigued by your description of VanDrunen’s natural law approach as inconsistent. Can you clarify what you mean by that?
That answers it, thanks. I was looking in particular at this quote:
In regards to VanDrunen I have in mind the fact that natural law = moral law = ten commandments. We know this because that is what Scripture teaches, but for some reason he/they believe we should not use Scripture to clarify our understanding of the moral law, but should instead rely on unaided reason to develop some murky understanding of natural law (instead of just putting on the glasses of Scripture to bring things into focus). So his early book was “A Biblical Case for Natural Law” but then we can’t use the Bible to guide us in applying that natural law that we learned about from the Bible.
James Anderson raised similar concerns here http://www.proginosko.com/2011/02/two-kingdoms-ten-commandments-one-objection/
Brandon, that helps. What you describe is a widespread misunderstanding of VanDrunen’s work that is not entirely accurate. He does believe we understand natural law through the lens of Scripture, as I think is evidenced by his first book on natural law which you mention, but will be much more clear in his massive, forthcoming biblical theology of natural law (I’ve read the manuscript and one thing I can say is that a significant amount of the criticism DVD has received recently charges him with believing and arguing things directly contrary to what he lays out in this book.)
Of course, you have to take my word on this, but the evidence is forthcoming. I hope that helps.
I would be delighted if that was the case, but you haven’t convinced me. His BCFNL was my introduction to his inconsistency, not the solution to it. If it is indeed a misunderstanding, one has to ask why it is so widespread. Everything I have read confirms my concerns… but hopefully his forthcoming work corrects problems, as I do think much of what he says about 2K apart from his preoccupation with natural law is great.