Mike Huckabee and the Two Kingdoms
Monday, January 7, 2008 at 03:52PM 
Now that Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls--quite a surprise to me--his candidacy raises very important issues regarding the two kingdoms (the "kingdom of God" and the "city of man"). Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for more than ten years, so one might assume that Huckabee no longer sees himself as called to the gospel ministry. Not so. Click here: Huckabee Steps Back Into the Pulpit at Evangelical Church in N.H.
Here's why Huckabee and so many on the Christian Right make me nervous--they often confuse the two kingdoms. Here's an example of what I mean. On January 6, while campaigning in New Hampshire for president of the United States, Mike Huckabee preached a sermon at a church called the Crossing. In his sermon, Huckabee stated "When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ." This raises a number of red-flags.
First, if Huckabee is called to public service (a legitimate and noble calling), then he should resign his office as minister. That would clarify things greatly. In effect, Huckabee should do what the minister in the movie the Patriot did when he took up arms against the Tories--he took off his clerical collar before going to war. This made things very clear. Ministers don't wage war. Citizens can if the cause is just.
Second, it makes me very, very, nervous when a presidential candidate gets in a pulpit and preaches a sermon during the midst of an election in which he is running for office, especially when the church service seems much like an election rally. It makes me even more nervous when candidate Huckabee speaks of God's army and being a soldier for Christ in that same sermon.
In all fairness, Huckabee made an effort to preach a sermon and not give a political speech. But why does a candidate who feels he is called to be president of the United States, also feel called to preach a sermon using militaristic metaphors, if not to whip up potential voters? If not confusing the kingdoms (which I think Huckabee did), it certainly muddies the waters. Not good.
Third, since evangelicals often don't evaluate things theologically, they tend not to see a man confused about what God has called him to do (either be a public servant or a minister), and instead see value in having a "man of God" as president. This, many think, will ensure that the traditional values agenda is duly addressed from the right perspective. After all, it is argued, America is a "Christian nation" and must maintain these values. Huckabee, it is believed, will do this.
When viewed from the perspective of the two kingdoms, every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms and our theological beliefs should inform how we behave as citizens. But there's no distinction of kingdoms with Huckabee in a pulpit, and Huckabee's "soldiers in God's army" are people who will serve his political cause. In other words, they'll vote for him and encourage others to do the same. Fine for a political rally. Not fine for a church service.
Let say that as for me and my house, we'll have nothing to do with Mike Huckabee. I don't like his populist rhetoric. I want to hear talk about budget cuts, tax cuts, size of government cuts, etc. I want to hear a candidate tell me how he will protect my civil liberties and not mortgage the future of my children by taxing and spending. Furthermore, I will not support a candidate for president who wants the nanny state to protect me by keeping me from smoking--Huckabee supported a national "no smoking" initiative. By the way, other than a very occasional cigar, I don't smoke. I happen to think the nanny state can be as dangerous to my health as a two-pack a day habit.
Reader Comments (86)
On Huckabee, I am not a supporter, but I do think that it would be best if he were courteously encouraged to resign from the ministry at this time. As a matter of fact, I think that some of his responses and statements to certain religious topics have perhaps made him unqualified to be a pastor.
I should also add that the tone against immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, has really moved me to stay away from voting, especially from voting for certain Republicans. I am a Mexican-American, and I would not feel comfortable among certain Republicans. I have even seriously considered advising certain Hispanics to not join churches with mostly Caucasian members because of the strong and strident political views on immigration present in some congregations. I was considering joining one church but left due the strident and somewhat hostile atmosphere in things pertaining to theology and politics. Perhaps few reading this can understand me due to the lack of affections, which I have, toward many of these immigrants. I understand and know the situations of many of these people.
Perhaps I wrote too much, but the previous paragraph should give some insight as to what some American and Christian Hispanics are thinking as the political season goes forth.
I think you bring up some very good questions. And while Kim answers them well, I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with them, even as one who gobbles up his posted sermons, etc.
For this two-kingdomite, Kim is right that even as a minister he has one foot firmly planted in the LHK and has every right and duty to his views, etc. But what seems missed is the fact that his office speaks for him even when not in the pulpit.
It has less to do with having views and more to do with how, where and to whom they are expressed. I would a much more conservative view, that a minister should hold his views tightly to his chest. It seems to me that is a burden of the office. I know it is hard for those who have particuarly strong views, but it is a burden nevertheless that the rest of us simply don't have upon us.
At the risk of hearing that I am simply a contrarian (I have much more in common with Kim than I don't!), my concern is what you express: that the Gospel gets obscured by being lined up with certain cultural conclusions (e.g. what you say about taxes above, great point). Upon my inital conversion I never really understood why all of a sudden I had to be a deep shade of red. We risk alienating sinners when we associate the unfettered Gospel with...you name it, red or blue. The point here is that ministers have that ability upon them by definition and default. And I am not persuaded that blogs are somehow less vulnerable to these sorts of rules and are in a league of their own.
Anyway, I think your points are very good and worth consideration.
Agreed. Ministers must carefully consider the burden of their office and keep many things close to their vest for all the reasons you cite.
Have I said too much? I don't think so, especially when there's been so much focus here upon where the lines are. People understand, I think, the difference in purpose between a blog and a sermon. The same holds true for what is said on the White Horse Inn and what I preach on Sunday. I am used to these kinds of distinctions, and this give us all a great chance to flesh them out here.
But I certainly agree with you that I (or any other minister) shouldn't say anything beyond what I've already said. If for no other reason than to keep things close to the vest.
That's why I won't endorse anyone for President and that is why I make sure people understand that I am very critical of either political party when their presidential candidates confuse the two kingdoms.
One more point to consider. I think it very important that we speak when candidates like Huckabee do this, because he creates so much confusion in the media and among evangelicals.
This is a great opportunity to explain the doctrine of the two kingdoms, and what ministers and churches can do and what they shouldn't do.
This is a time for catechesis!
Peace,
Brad
I think I'm of your persuasion. As one who will be ordained (DV) later this year, I just can't bring myself to divulge my personal political views in public for the reasons you mentioned.
I guess that I would simply try to use this opportunity regarding Huckabee's confusion to teach the two kingdoms view without specifically mentioning my personal views on taxes and the size of government...etc. (hence my concern relating to the last paragraph of Kim's post).
-----------------
Kim,
I respect your boldness...I would just go about this discussion differently, that's all. Thanks again.
Brad
Thanks for this. One additional question I have for Huckabee is: How will your eschatology effect your foreign policy? I don't want someone who thinks modern Israel is fulfilling Daniel's and John's words in control of our military and foreign policy. One wise Reformed pastor has suggested (on what authority, I do not know) that Christian Zionism was represented in the advice given to President Bush on the Middle East.
In Huckabee's favor, he seems to sincerely believe what he preaches. The faith of many other candidates in this race (and in multitudes of others) seems perfunctory and without significant influence in their thought and life. While I don't think there should be a religious litmus test for president (better a wise Turk and all that), I do think the candidates' worldviews -- including their religion, of course -- should be open to examination insofar as it has implications for their work in office.
As for commenter Ben Keller's position above that he couldn't vote Democrat because of sin in their party planks, I know how he feels. However, consider this blog post on abortion by Lee Irons < http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?cat=51 > and this comparison of moral issues that were at play in the previous election and that haven't changed all that much < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/opinion/11roche.html >.
One point I'd like you to clarify, Kim: would you agree that limited government is not the position of Christianity proper? More to the point, do you agree that it should not be at all related to fellowship boundaries or tests for orthodoxy, that it is adiaphorous and that other views could be held without violating Scripture?
Also, out of curiosity, do you think Calvin's Geneva a model for the government is one we should seek to emulate?
Again, some great points.
I do indeed think a theological case can be made for limited government, given the biblical teaching about the beast and false prophet in Revelation. This should be in the back of every Christian's mind who thinks the government is always their friend (the root of populism). Yes, we should honor the king and pray for his welfare, until he demands that we call we call him "Lord" and that we stop referring to Christ in that way.
While Paul can call Rome a minister of God in Romans 13:4 (written in the mid-fifties of the first century), a generation later John calls that same government an agent of Satan (Revelation 13). This should be a warning to us all of how easily government leaders will take to themselves worship and honor which properly belong only to God. And yes, it can happen here . . .
I do think it a matter for discussion and debate about what limited government means and how it should look and function in American society. That's a discussion well worth having in the public square (with Christians participating).
As for the church, I'd like to see Christians understand the two kingdoms well enough so that we could have some robust in-house debate about how we can best accomplish some of the things we think ought to be done. What does it mean to be pro-life? How do we care for the poor? How do we best serve as good stewards of God's creation?
But such a discussion should always start with Christians making sure that their own diaconal ministries (in their own churches) are doing everything in their power to take care of widows and orphans in their own midst, and supporting word and sacrament with appropriate acts of mercy and charity.
That's not the end of the discussion, but that is certainly where it should start.
As for Calvin, Calvin lived at a different time and place, under a different form of government. I'm not sure we'd want to emulate the civic government of Geneva, but there is certainly much to learn from Calvin about how the church ought to govern itself and care for its members.
OK--I'm done!
Great discussion! Thanks! I hope readers find this helpful.
Brad:
When you are ordained (Lord willing) just be ready with a reply the first time one of your church members corners you and asks (with the greatest of sincerity, of course) "pastor, who are you voting for?"
That day is sure to come . . .
Boy, do I agree with you. And judging from Huckabee's website, although he doesn't mingle his religious views with his support of Israel, one has to wonder why he devotes so much attention to "Israel" if it wasn't to get the Christian zionist and Jewish vote, and convince them that he's one of their ilk.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=3
There are some statements on that page that made me scratch my head, but, that's for another day, I guess.
Good discussion.
aL
I'll cut you some slack (sort of)! I cover this in my book, the Man of Sin. You can probably find it for a reasonable price on the Internet
What I've heard from dispensationalists are complaints that Dubya is surrounded by and taking advice from "replacement theologians".
Thanks for your response on limited government. If I can boil down your case: less government is less dangerous, and we have biblical (not to mention plenty of contemporaneous and post-biblical) evidence demonstrating government gone wrong. Let's do what we can to avoid that.
In particular, I agree fully with you about diaconal ministries being in high gear before we go around suggesting we chuck the welfare state. Even so, I find myself in agreement with Abraham Kuyper, Dutch pastor and theologian, journalist, and Prime Minister, who rightly said to a gathering of Christian statesmen that if help comes from nowhere else, the government must take action, but he commanded them, "Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your Savior." Indeed it is.
Thanks for cutting me some slack! (I am not clear as to why I may need it, but I am happy to take any slack I can get!)... :)
aL
If you want to criticize him on theological issues he holds, thats fine. But just like he may be confusing 2 kingdoms you are confusing the different roles people have. I am a father and an engineer, if I fail today at being a father, it should have no relevance on the quality of work i do at my job.
Get over it people, huckabee is not that bad. We all know that as a reformed people, you will complain about something. you probably wouldnt vote for your (hypothetical) christian blood brother if he was running for president. why wouldnt you wish success for your christian brother whether he is a democrat or republican, socialist or capitalist, running for governor or president.
Dont confuse your view of how government should be to be the only "christian" view of what government should be!
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Kim is taking MH's sermon out of context. Sounds like Kim is giving a false impression that huckabee is say that "all in gods army should vote for Huckabee".
I am not a huckabee supporter, but I do wish him success in representing who christ is to the world while he does whatever other job he is doing.
I dunno, I listened to his sermon and it sounded just like Joel Osteen. I've read he was also one of the southern baptists who didn't think the battle over inerrancy in that denomination was worth fighting:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2007/12/baptist-civil-war-fallout-or-w.html
When I read about him elsewhere, he sounds like Joel Osteen but with politics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06huckabee.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1199855325-nVDm0MOPIVflPjcqkd891A
What views were expressed by people in the churches you attended that you found so distasteful? What, in your estimation, would be a Biblical view of illegal immigration?
Also, I find it baffling that in any evangelical political discourse there's some implicit notion that you must vote Republican - you got your guys in last time around and look how that turned out, why would you want to do it again? The evangelical right, such as it is, reminds me of an abused spouse: "This time it will be different. This time he really means it..."
And we all know how that works out.
Where's the discussion on Iraq, the "war on terror", spying on your own citizens, torturing people and potential war crimes, the lies (Gonzales) and abuse of power (Cheney - what branch of govt is he in again?) and on and on it goes.
Isn't it time for a rethink of who you support?
Anyway, all that said, I'm very glad to read Kim will not publicly endorse anyone. It's a very strange tradition your Christian leaders seem to indulge in (eg Wayne Grudem endorsing Romney, goodness) which seems to divide people over political issues, not gospel issues.
I certainly can't imagine Jesus telling people how to vote every four years.
May I ask why you refer to yourself as a Mexican-American? I am ov Mexican decent and I am proud of that. But I was born in the country and I am an American. Both my parents when they came here became citizens and now refer to themselves as Americans. I would also caution you to not consider telling latinos to not attend caucasion churches. I attend a predominatly white church and I have been received with grace and love, no matter what the political postion. Are there sensitivities when it comes to immigration etc? Yes, but we are first united in Christ as brothers and sisters. Are you not contributing to the problem of church segregation? I think that is wrong.