Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« Swell . . . | Main | "Office Hours" -- New Audio from the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California »

Two Kingdoms Discussion

There have been a number of useful discussions of the two kingdoms doctrine of late and I thought it might be helpful to post links to them (in case you hadn't seen them).

First up is Kevin DeYoung's discussion of the pros and cons of the two kingdoms approach to Christianity and culture, as well as that of neo-Kuyperianism.

Click here: DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed: Two Kingdom Theology and Neo-Kuyperians

The White Horse Inn blog offers responses from Jason Stellman and Darryl Hart here (Click here: Why Two Kingdoms? » White Horse Inn Blog), and here (Click here: More on Two Kingdoms » White Horse Inn Blog).

Darryl Hart weighs in on the specious argument that the civil kingdom is neutral ground because it is common ground. Click here: Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Neutrality, Schnootrality

Reader Comments (6)

These were fascinating links. This is an area I have been doing a lot of reading on. I know this will be heresy on this site, but I think DeYoung makes some persuasive points.
August 19, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterreg
Perhaps, Reg, but Stellman and Hart make superior points.
August 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterZrim
I think DeYoung is mosttly two kingdoms. He says "It seems to me we are more like the Israelites in exile in Babylon than we are the Israelites in the promised land. " and "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." But i guess I wonder if the church should ever take a stand as such against extreme societal evils like slavery or concentration camps in WWII Germany. I understand it is a slippery slope, I just find those difficult issues.

BTW somewhat related to previous exchanges on the role of the Christian vis-avis the emperor, what is your take on Bonhoffer participating in the plot to blow up Hitler?. Was that justified in your opinion?
August 19, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterreg

DeYoung being "mostly 2K" reminds me of the YRR guys being "mostly Reformed." Or 3-4 point Calvinists (how come nobody ever calls himself a 1-2 point Arminian?).

Yes, they are difficult issues, I agree. But it's even harder to remain faithful to the spirituality of the church without being reckoned apathetic, liberal, antinomian or (gasp) Lutheran.

Re Bonhoeffer, short answer is, no, it was not in the least justifiable.

Extended answer: Hart once summed up the Christian life in one word: obedience. Western religionists, especially 21st century Americans, hate that. We conceive of civil disobedience as a virtue, but the case can be made that the NT considers it shameful. There is a significant difference between cultic disobedience and cultural disobedience. It seems to me very difficult to make the biblical case that to kill one's civil authority is justifiable, but I think most of us harbor sympathy when it comes to Bonhoeffer. And it's easy to deny extremism. It's harder to come to terms with how something like the spirituality of the church confronts our American polity that invites, nurtures, even rewards, civil dissent and impatience. Is it possible that American polity is more antithetical than encouraging to Christian piety? It could be that it isn’t quite as safe and happy to be an American Christian as sermons on Memorial Day and platitudes on July 4 might think. It might be that what we presume as a blessing is closer to what it means to struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil.
August 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterZrim
You hit the difficulty on the head when you write "It's harder to come to terms with how something like the spirituality of the church confronts our American polity that invites, nurtures, even rewards, civil dissent and impatience."
Our country was founded on rebellion. We know our rights. We will not be silenced. We are encouraged to complain, protest and make our voice heard. We will not be repressed, suppressed or oppressed. How different the roman empire 2000 years ago when the culture demanded obedience and submission to the emperor.
In a lot of ways the biblical teaching of obedience and submission was congruent with the culture of the time. That is not the case in 21st century America. That makes application of biblical principals so difficult as a present day American. Our culture is diametrically opposed to the biblical example. this makes wrestlng with these issues very very challenging.
August 19, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterreg
How far back is the back of the bus, Rosa?
How many are you hiding, Corrie?
What was that dream again, Martin?
How much did that cost, Dietrich?
August 21, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterobey

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.