Consequences of Confusing the Two Kingdoms or Denying our Dual Citizenship
When these two kingdoms are confused or conflated, we see the rise of the "social gospel" of Protestant liberalism, American civil religion of the Christian right and the liberal left, as well as the rise of Constantianism (Christendom). The church must never take up the sword and Caesar must never enter the pulpit.
When the Christian's dual citizenship is denied (or ignored), we see the rise of asceticism, pietism, radical pacifism and Anabaptism.
Therefore, a Christian is free to work with non-Christians in the civil kingdom to promote the common good and preserve a just society. But the kingdom of Christ is tied to word and sacrament and the church (and its officers and members) must speak to the pressing moral issues of the day in terms of law and gospel, not in terms of the political activism found in the civil kingdom. Yes, the church must address moral issues as they are found and framed in Scripture (through the preaching and catechetical function of the church), but the church is not to engage in partisan politics, nor endorse any political party or candidate.
i) So what does he mean by “the church”? Does his definition include Christ as the head of the church? But that can’t be, since Christ is king of both “kingdoms.”
ii) Does he mean church officers and church members? If so, suppose we plug that definition into his strictures:
Church officers and/or members must no “engage in partisan politics, nor endorse any political party of candidate.”
Really? A Christian layman must never engage in partisan politics, endorse any political party or candidate? Is he serious? Christians are not entitled to work through the democratic process?
A Christian layman must never take up the sword? Christians are not entitled to run for public office? Or serve in the military?
Is that what he means? If that’s not what he means, then what in the world does he mean?
Kim Riddlebarger: "...the church (and its officers and members) must speak to the pressing moral issues of the day in terms of law and gospel, not in terms of the political activism found in the civil kingdom."
ReplyDeleteSuppose a church (and its officers and members) does happen to speak to the pressing moral issues of the day in terms of the political activism found in the civil kingdom.
What penalties do the R2K proponents levy for violations of their strictures? Do they issue condemnations and criticisms of those churches, pastors, and laymen who did participate in the Public Square on the pressing moral issues of the day?
What exactly will R2K proponents do if folks do what the R2K proponents say not to do?
Here's the conclusion of a post titled Scripture and providence in R2K theology: ne'er the twain shall meet...:
ReplyDelete"This is the folly of the R2K position. At precisely those moments when Biblical understanding and courage demand that the Christian speak--especially, that the shepherd of Christ's flock speak words of warning--these trainers-of-shepherds require their disciples to shut up, to keep silence, to allow God to speak for Himself and not presume to be His messengers.
This is cowardice, plain and simple."
Steve asks: "So what does he mean by “the church”?"
ReplyDeleteGood question. One answer is provided in the comment section in the post David VanDrunen: Machen and Ethics:
"The definition of the church that we believe is that the church is a spiritual institution of Word and Sacrament that is not of this world.
when the members come together as a body to worship God, then they are for that moment considered to be engaging in a spiritual task as a spiritual institution as the Church. When they disperse after the benefiction, they scatter back into the world."