Aug
14
2009
Two Kingdom Theology and Neo-Kuyperians
I was speaking at an OPC family camp for a few days this week. Really great folks and very theologically literate. The after-session discussion du jour focused on two kingdom theology v. neo-Kuyperianism (sounds like your family camp too, I know).
In broad strokes, the two kingdom folks believe in a kingdom of this world and a kingdom of Christ. We have a dual citizenship as Christians. Further, the realm of nature should not be expected to function and look like the realm of grace. Living in the tension of two kingdoms we should stop trying to transform the culture of this world into the kingdom of our Lord and instead focus on the church being the church, led by it duly ordained officers and ministering through the ordinary means of grace.
On the other hand, neo-Kupyerianism (intellectual descendants of the Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper) argue that every square inch of this world belongs to Christ. Therefore, his Lordship should be felt and manifested in politics, in the arts, in education, in short, everywhere. Because the work of Christ was not just to save sinners but also to renew the whole cosmos, we should be at work to change the world and transform the culture.
I don’t like the “third rail” folks who are always positioning themselves as the sane alternative between two extremes, but I have to admit that there are elements of both approaches–two kingdom theology and neo-Kuyperianism–that seem biblical and elements that seem dangerous.
On the plus side for the two-kingdom approach:
• Emphasis on the church and the ordinary means (e.g., preaching, sacraments)
• Realistic appraisal of our fallen world and the dangers of utopian idealism
• Acknowledges that while Christians can do and should do many worthwhile things in the world, the church as church has a more limited mandate
• Avoids endless, and often silly, pronouncements on all sorts of cultural and political matters
• Takes seriously the already and not-yet of the kingdom
• Understands that every nice thing that happens in the world is not “kingdom work”
• A bulwark against theonomy and reconstructionism
But I also see some dangers in a radical two-kingdom approach:
• An exaggerated distinction between laity and church officers (e.g., evangelism is the responsibility of elders and pastors not of the regular church members)
• An unwillingness to boldly call Christians to work for positive change in their communities and believe that some change is possible
• The doctrine of the “spirituality of the church” allowed the southern church to “punt” (or worse) on the issue of slavery during the 19th century
The neo-Kuyperians have some positives too:
• A desire to make their faith public
• Zeal to confront injustice and help the hurting
• Appreciation for the goodness of the created world
• Takes seriously that Christianity is about more than sinners getting their ticket punched for heaven
But, alas, there are also number of shortcomings with the neo-Kuyperian view:
• Blurs the distinction between common grace and special grace
• Blurs the distinction between general and special revelation
• Can minimize personal redemption at the expense of cosmic renewal
• Explicit biblical support for commanding all Christians to change the world or transform the culture is very thin
• Devolves quickly into an indistinct moralism
So where does this leave us? I’m not quite sure. The two kingdom theology has better biblical support in my opinion. It seems to me we are more like the Israelites in exile in Babylon than we are the Israelites in the promised land. The earnest calls for world transformation assume that because Christ will renew the whole cosmos therefore our main job as Christians is to do the same. But this is basing a whole lot of theology on a pretty tenuous implication. Two kingdom theology feels more realistic to me and fits better with the “un-preoccupied-with-transforming-society” vibe I get from the New Testament.
And yet, I am loathe to be an apologist for the status quo, or to throw cold water on young people who want to see abortion eradicated or dream of kids in Africa having clean water. I don’t think it’s wrong for a church to have an adoption ministry or an addiction recovery program. I think changing structures, institutions, and ideas not only helps people but can pave the way for gospel reception.
Perhaps there is a–I can’t believe I’m going to say it–a middle ground. I say, let’s not lose the heart of the gospel, divine self-satisfaction through self-substitution. And let’s not apologize for challenging Christians to show this same kind of dying love to others. Let’s not be embarrassed by the doctrine of hell and the necessity of repentance and regeneration. And let’s not be afraid to do good to all people, especially to the household of faith. Let’s work against the injustices and suffering in our day, and let’s be realistic that the poor, as Jesus said, will always be among us. Bottom line: let’s work for change where God calls us and gifts us, but let’s not forget that the Great Commission is go into the world and make disciples, not go into the world and build the kingdom.
*****
NOTE: I won’t be able to engage in a lot of discussion on this issue, but I do welcome your thoughts. I know I have painted with very broad strokes, so all you two-kingdom folks and neo-Kuyperians feel free to make a better case for your position than I have laid out here.
27 Comments
Kevin,
I think you are right about man of the relative dangers and strengths of both views.
Like you I sometimes worry that some advocates of the Two Kingdom/spirituality of the Church doctrine use it to forget about their obligations to God and civic society as citizens of the Kingdom of Creation. There can develop a sneering superiority towards Christians who take stands for morality in the public square. And you rightly point out that the Southern Presbyterian Church (of which my denomination, the PCA, is an heir), used their spirituality doctrine to justify a lessez faire policy on slavery.
Having said all that I take the view that such wrong thinking reveals internal inconsistency in the minds of those who advocate the Two Kingdoms rather than revealing a real weakness in the doctrine itself. If there are two Kingdoms and Christians are citizens of both then their obligations to both are coordinate. That means we have a mandate for art and politics and science and culture making that does not seek to turn the kingdom of creation into the kingdom of redemption nor validate culture making by means of evangelism or Christianizing society. Rather it simply engages in all these Christianly, as part of the duty of a Christian citizen to the glory of God.
I do not agree with you about Church adoption/addiction recovery ministries etc. I take the view that these are philanthropic endeavours that are wonderful and can be prayed for and encouraged by the church, but they are not part of the mandate of the local Church as an institution.
It is precsiely at this point that I think Two Kingdoms theory helps. It seems to me that rightly understood it leaves wiggle room for the parachurch. Church or State are not the only options. Philanthropic societies of civic minded Christian citizens who, because of their faith, strive to be the best citizens and want to make a difference, can and should be established for such purposes so that the church remains free to invest itself in its narrower remit, while offering support and encouragement, and even a degree of accountability to such Christian organizations.
I have ranted more about all this here: http://davestrain.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/in-praise-of-the-parachurch/
Thanks for your stimulating blog.
Rev. DeYoung,
Why the distate for a "middle ground"? What is wrong with nuance and balance on an issue like this?
Great thoughs. You say, "let's remember that the Great Commission is to go into the world and make disciples, not to go into the world and build a kingdom." Greg Beale in his book "The Temple and the Mission of the Church" makes a strong case that the Great Commission is a recapitulation of the creation mandate to Adam. God has made humanity to spread his glory to all of his creation, and God's temple-presence is now in us, as bearers of Jesus' mission and redemption. And what do we make of the fact that Jesus' miracles, redeeming physical creation as a sign of the kingdom? At the same time, I do think you're right that the NT is not pre-occupied with social transformation and sees us primarily as aliens. But what about the fact that the Babylonian exiles were to "seek the welfare of the city"? I would just push back on your comment that there is weak "explicit biblical support" for the mandate to change culture. Perhaps the goal is not to "change culture," but I think the arc of the bible is to renew the entire world, and personal, spiritual redemption through divine self-substitution is the key to this.
Interesting, One of the major problems I have with the the two kingdom view is that it seems to capitualte to the sacred/secular, fact/value split that relativizes and minimizes Christianity to a personal subject belief while leaving the real work to the "secular" folk who dont need Christianity to get by. It almost seems as if it carves out a realm where we dont need God or a place where we can use unaided human reason to make sense of the world without relying on our Creator. Or to say it another way, that there is such a thing as neutrality or some ground in between our commitment to Christ and the daily affairs of life (that have no relation to Kingdom work). So i think, if caried to its logical conclusion, it does more than just hinder Christian involment in social issues, it can actually cause Christians to think they can live their life day by day without God and then add a spiritual cherry on top by doing devotions and going to church on Sundays all the while allowing the secular naturalists to dominate politics, education and anything public outside of the spiritual realm of the church.So basically Christianity will be seen as biased and subjective while naturalism looks objective and unbiased. I would argue that there is no neutrality in God's kingdom, either you are for him or against him. I think it may be better to think of all of reality and God's under God's soverign rule where he is King of all, but recognizing that there are things that reflect God's orginal intent for creation and things that evidence distortion and sin from the fall. I think those are the realities at war. So, that being said, we should work to restore things to reflect God's original intent for creation and seek to eliminate those things that reflct the distortion and rebellion resulting from the fall.
I really appreciate this post and summary of the two views. I've heard lots of discussions of these ideas, but have never seen the debate identified and laid out so clearly.
I agree that we are like the exiles in Babylon. How does Jememiah's letter to the exiles apply in this discussion? In Jeremiah 29:7, he writes, "But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."
Does that in some way support a neo-Kuyperian view?
A book that seems to espouse the neo-Kuyperian is the book "Unfashionable" by Tullian Tchvidjian. I thought it was a good book and actually fleshed out this view well even though I am probably closer to the Two-world view.
PS Please pray for Tullian and some of the opposition that he has incurred at his new church home. It seems that the media is really playing this up and those in opposition are happy to oblige the media. (Which is shameless on behalf of the people in opposition)
While there are two kingdoms, we should be aware that Jesus is Lord over all of our life, over all the world – there is nothing that he cannot say 'mine', yet there are people and things that won't say that they are his.
David was king, Saul was on the throne. David didn't try and dethrone Saul, despite the kingdom being his. There's the Biblical two kingdoms thing – we follow David, the rightful king, not Saul whose just hanging on to the throne. We don't attack Saul. We plead with him to realise David's kingship and to stop persecuting us. We help Saul when it's not ungodly to, just as David did with the lyre, with killing Goliath.
I think that a clear understanding of sphere sovereignty can help clear up a lot of potential problems with the neo-Kuyperian position. Sphere sovereignty distinguishes between Christians acting at redeemed individuals throughout the scope of their lives and the Church acting as the gathering together of believers. The church as the Church has a limited sphere and responsibility (e.g. teaching, evangelism, and discipleship), but individual Christians have larger responsibilities in the sphere of family and civic community.
Kevin,
Nice post. Very thoughful. I have some comments and thoughts about this post here.
It seems like a clear understanding of the Sabbath sheds some light here. We are given six days for labor in the world (transformation of culture) and one day to gather for worship (means of grace) and rest.
It seems that the Biblical support for cultural transformation is abundant. Especially in the area of ministering to the poor and marginalized. The teachings of Jesus overflow with the command to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc… He is picking up a major motif of Israel's prophets in advocating this. It seems like for any understanding of the Kingdom to be adequate it would have to leave significant room for proclaiming good news to the poor.
Kevin,
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I have been listening to Michael Horton quite a bit lately on The White Horse Inn. They seem to advocate the sharp distinction of the two kingdoms. I certainly would embrace their desire to see the church be the church not have pastors forsake the gospel for "social concerns. Mixing politics with the gospel has always been historically a HUGE mess and we do well to steer far clear from it. BUT there has to be exceptions…
I certainly can't keep quiet about the horror of abortion, just like Christian pastors in 1850 should not have kept quiet about the horror of slavery.
Can you imagine being a pastor in in Denmark in 1940 when Hilter was the march for total European domination and keeping quiet about the need to speak against it because, "that is the world's business, my only job is the preach the gospel". I can't in light of Micah 6:8 and Matthew 23:23.
I would submit that the only real foundation for pursing any type of real justice is the gospel. Justice has been and will be finally served. God is a God of justice (the Cross and passive and active wrath) and we should thus be a people of justice as well.
Here is an article that dives into this question in depth. I highly recommend it.
Hi Kevin,
I disagree with your critique of Neo-Kuyperian (Dooyeweerdian) philosophy. I did so point by point at JT's site.
What I want to say here is: your use of the term "culture" is much different than Dooyeweerd's or others in the Kuyperian school. He used it in the sense of transforming power, as Kalsbeek put it "The controlled shaping of material according to a free design". It is about the process, not the result. What happens with modern discussions is identifying culture with the spheres of society that fall outside of the church boundaries, ie business, family, crafts/ production, etc. It is a hip use of the term, but it does not explain what the Kuyperian notion is about.
Coming to terms with someone with whom you disagree is a great start. Not to be condescending, but there is much more to this than you give out here.
Any way, lively discussion.
In Christ,
Chris
biomcgary,
Sphere sovereignty is a Kuyperian notion (learned from Althusias), so he had already cleared up his own supposed mess.
C
Quick question for anyone to answer. I am slightly new to this discussion but I am wondering if the terms that formed in my mind were synonymous. In this post are "Two Kingdom Theology" and "Amillennialism" synonymous, and "Neo-Kuyperianism" and "Postmillennialism" synonymous?
As a contemporary example of the neo-Kuyperian perspective in action, the Center for Public Justice (cpjustice.org) is top-notch public policy research organization that is both theologically well-grounded and intellectually robust. It's no surprise their annual lecture series is named after Kuyper himself.
Based on the interactions I've had with the organization and its publications (particularly the commendable scholarship of Jim Skillen), the CPJ's neo-Kuyperian approach to cultural/political engagement does not even remotely approach the pitfalls Kevin listed in his post. The CPJ could never be accused of promoting the social gospel or nebulous altruism.
Another example of solid neo-Kuyperian efforts can be found in Comment magazine, whose stated goal is to "build a Christian intellectual, artistic, and culture-making community animated by the gospel: serving the people of God seeking the shalom of our cities." (www.cardus.ca/comment)
What's wrong about theonomy? I find it impossible to escape.
Though the Reconstructionists made many blunders (like: not starting with the Gospel), I have never read a satisfatory rebuke of theonomic ethics as a principle. I mean, where else are you going to gather the Christian approach to politics and civil government and economy, etc, if not from God's Law? What's wrong with that?
Shall we be content with humanist ungodly political theory? Was this the approach of the Reformers and the Puritans who also reformed politics and the secular sphere according to Scripture? I mean: where do you think that things like the institution of marriage, limited representative federal government, independent education, private propriety, capitalism, etc, came from?
Theonomists merely took off from where Kuyper and Dooyeweerd left. And from where Calvin started.
Also the point is made that we should take care of the poor and the needy, and be charitable towards widows and orphans; that we must be the light of the world and the salt of the earth; that we must teach all nations the things that Christ, the sovereign king, taught us. The same Christ, mind you, that told us that not a ioda can be erased from the Law. This includes the cultural mandate – that tells us to be stewards of the creation and to persue the dominion of the earth. So ecology and charity may sound wonderful to our postmodern ears. But what about the civil government and the magistrate? Why and how can we pick in chose from the Law (cerimonial and adhoc subdivisions excepted)? By what standard?
Of course that eschatology is vital here. If I were a premillennial or even a pessimist amillenial, I would just be bothered about keeping the gates of the Church safe from hell.
The problem is – Christ tells us that it is the gates of hell that won't resist the Church.
And that should set you thinking.
* pick and choose
How are we like Jeremiah's situation? Have God's people rejected his prophets for centuries? Has he sent us out of some kind of Promised Land (Anno Domini) into a prophecied beast of Daniel (or something like that)?
And if we are strangers and pilgrims (which we are), what about Isaac and David who also were strangers and pilgrims while they were scaring the daylights out of Philistines?
Kevin,
Thank you for stimulating such a good discussion on something that has such massive implications! I have been thinking through the gospel and healthcare lately and this hits right on the root of it.
Thank you also for bringing up the example of the church having an adoption and addition recovery ministry as a means to pointing to the gospel. For that very reason, and the fact that it reflects the heart of God, I think these types of ministries are needed in the church! In fact, more than just a ministry I believe they should be a part of the very culture of the church.
Dave, you say these are "philanthropic endeavours" but not a part of the mandate of the church as an institution. What would you base that on biblically? James 1:27 says "religion that is pure and undefiled before the father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world." It seems to me that the thrust of James’ statement is not that these things are merely to be encouraged by the church and prayed for but that they are to be at the very heart of who we are as the church and people of God. I think many would not argue that "keeping oneself unstained from the world" is a part of the churches mandate. But in this context that is only part of what “true religion” looks like.
James really gets this from the Old Testament and the many places that God makes clear His heart towards the poor and the fatherless and commands His people to do the same. He makes it so clear that that Jonathan Edwards said there is no clearer or more plainly laid out command in all of scripture. Jesus himself backs this up by His example of preaching to the poor and healing the poor. He says that “whatever we do for the least of these” we have done to Him. All this leads me (among many other biblical reasons) to believe that adoption/orphan ministry is indeed a part of the mandate of the church.
As far as addiction recovery ministries, the mandate of the church is to make disciples by the power of the gospel. I see that as the only foundation and hope for successful recovery from addiction. The church has the best resources to help those addicted; the gospel, a loving community, and a common mission.
I love the para-church (I work for one), but I also believe the more we as the para-church can support the church (and not the other way around) the greater the impact we can make for the cause of the Gospel, the good of man, and the glory of God.
I would love to hear your thoughts back on these things!
This was a nice basic summary of the two main positions, and their weaknesses when warped. Of course, we know that these issues can be argued at deeper levels of debate and nuance. But like yourself, I see a more defensible position for the two-kingdom view given the the place of the gospel message and church in and for the world. The two-kingdom theory is strengthened by sound historical-redepmtive thinking, especially the now and not yet tension of the kingdom clearly present.
Yet, we see, too, how a Christian is no separatist within the culture God plants them. They are to witness and strive in words and deeds, affirming their common ground with humanity, yet calling people to faith, seeking excellence in humility in their endeavors, yet seeing how some are more vital than others.
I disagree with #1 who, on the one hand, espoused a mandaate for "art, politics and science" yet played down such a impetus applied to "recovery ministries" and "philanthropic endeavours". Surely that is a false choice, given how one relies upon the other to substantiate its claim and activity (i.e., good science adds its share of information to help understand people's bio-behavior in recovery ministries). Further recovery ministries can be a key part in the churches commitment to the whole person, helping them out of ruts and damaged conditions of life and false thinking to become active as Christ-centered vessels for the kingdom. That is all part of affirming the physical as well as the spiritual in salvation pointed towards a new heavens and new earth.
Take the Peacemakers ministry under Ken Sande, which heals relationships among churches, families and marriages for instance! Not much discipleship happens or improvement in their cultural field without that Gospel application for the unity of soul and church. Is is not a mandate also to be peacemakers for recovery?
The mandate is not merely applied to structural and cultural spheres in the abstract, as in politics elevated above human recovery of lives enslaved by addiction, which is made into a political issue anyway to how culture is elevated and changed. Addiction relief is as important as urban renewal as political stability through the church and the gospel (message and scope). They are, in the wider mandate for Christian truth, witness and influence, very much integrated and overlapped in the early and final composition of the whole matter.
If I may offer one caution (to several of those who have responded to your post):
Be careful we are not vesting authority in the practical abuses of doctrine.
We are sinful. So whatever the doctrines we hold, each comes with positional dispositions toward certain abuses. For example, in your post you said that abuse of the Two Kingdom view may lead to an "unwillingness to boldly call Christians to work for positive change in their communities and believe that some change is possible."
This is absolutely a possible abuse. To hold a "Two Kingdoms" view is by position to be predisposed to this possibility. The Neo-Kuyperian will not be tempted in this way since his doctrine doesn't allow for it. His doctrine clearly demands that Christians seek to change their culture and communities.
We ought to be aware of these possible abuses so as to be on gaurd against them, while being careful not to vest authority in them as though because a doctrine be abused it is not true. If it were appropriate for us to measure the veracity of any doctrine this way, no doctrine could stand as all have, in time, seen their abuses.
The bible is the final authority. If you want to argue for or against, make your case from the scriptures. To do otherwise is neither right nor safe. This is Satan's way of confusing the church.
Why do you think that so many churches, for example, have avoided teaching on the Holy Spirit? Many Christians hardly know of this person of the Trinity at all. Why? Because we have all seen abuses in charismatic churches that have scared us away from the topic completely. Tozer says its as though Satan captured a crow feeding in the field of God and killed it, and strung it up. Then he called together all the other crows and said, "Hey, you see that crow over there? I'd stay out of that field if I were you, lest you become like him."
There will always be abuses in the church. All the more reason to derive our doctrine from God's word and hold it firmly despite them.
Your list of shortcomings isn't a fair comparison. While 2 Kingdoms people do in fact state that the great commission only applies to church officers (and you disagree), how many Kuyperians would acutally advocate blurring the distinction of common and special grace, or general and special revelation? Or anything else on that list? These are perhaps potential abuses to which a Neo-Kuyperian might be prone, but none of these "shortcomings of the Neo-Kuyperian view," because no one would advocate any of them.
Looks like you've got plenty of other comments to read here Kevin, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway:
I agree with much of what you said and I think there is a 3rd option.
I think the biggest problem for transformationalism is the fact that Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. They attempt to "reclaim the crown rights of Christ" but they fail to see Christ never lost his crown.
On the other hand, I think the biggest problem for the 2 kingdoms view is their view of special revelation. I have seen an unhealthy and unbiblical view of special revleation to the point of ridiculing a father who desires to determine what "biblical child rearing" is. The sacred/secular wall they throw up is very hindering to the Christian life.
My problem with their view of general revelation is that they think it communicates something special revelation does not. General revelation is given first and foremost to condemn. It does not contain anything that is not also contained in Scripture, thus the idea that Christ governs the secular world through general revelation and the sacred world through special revelation is incoherent.
If you have any interest in seeing this objection fleshed out against 2 kingdomites, you can read a good interaction at "Bring the Books"
Is Transformationism Postmillenial?
Two Kingdoms: Natural Law
Russ, neo-Kuyperians may not advocate blurring these distinctions. But what if they do implicitly? The language of "kingdom work" is one such blurring. "Justice ministry" is another. So even if blurring isn't the desire or aim of neo-Calvinists, blurring happens.
Kevin: I like your thoughts. They strike me as a way of talking about the "now and not yet," which is an eschatological tension but often gets polarized by the over-optimistic transformationsts and the fortress-building two-kingdom folks. It seems both extremes have been problematic. Kuyper's Amsterdam doesn't look very transformed, but the Southern Pres head-in-the-sand approach to slavery is ugly. That said, help me understand your final idea – that the Great Comm is about making disciples, not building the Kingdom. Kingdom language just so thoroughly pervades the NT. It is the yeast in the dough that is growing/expanding. Help me understand the seeming dichotomy between building kingdom and making disciples.
Chuck DeGroat, City Church SF, Newbigin Seminary Project
[...] [...]