Wednesday, February 09, 2011

James Anderson on 2k


  1. James Anderson nails David Van Drunen with the following:

    "It’s important to see that 2K theories aren’t merely descriptive; they make substantial normative claims. Specifically, they make ethical claims about how Christians should conduct themselves as citizens of the two kingdoms. Christians ought to recognize and rightly apply the distinction between the two kingdoms. Consequently, Christians ought not to appeal to Scripture in their moral dealings with unbelievers, because Scripture is intended only for God’s covenant people and thus it is “not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom” (A Biblical Case for Natural Law, p. 38, my emphasis).

    But this observation invites a question: According to which moral standard do these ethical directives apply? As I see it, there are three possible answers here: (1) according to natural law, the moral standard of the common kingdom; (2) according to Scripture, the moral standard of the spiritual kingdom; or (3) according to some higher law that transcends and encompasses both kingdoms."

  2. There are different threads going on regarding this subject of 2k – so I am not sure where to leave the following, but here seems good as the quote referenced above brings many things into focus.

    For starters, I am a Christian theist, leading as a shepherd, a Baptist fellowship of believers who worship in two church buildings.

    I am growing more inclined towards and identifying with the New – Reformed perspective, as I have time to read on the matter. Obviously, this perspective covers many matters/issues dealing with the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the believer.

    With regards to 2k. Several observations come to mind.

    If the witness of our lives is intended to convey the greatness of God; how is it that we can avoid referencing Scripture in any dealings? Including moral ones? It seems that with the increasing Scriptural Illiteracy of the religious and non-religious public, we need more then ever to reference Scripture to give the person we are dealing with a context for understanding why we are either acting or speaking for or about something. It seems that it is unavoidable. Not merely for that pragmatic reason cited above, but also for the fact that the Word is supposed to be our light and a guide.

    Inappropriate moral standard? That seems to be an odd statement. Jesus seems to indicate in His woe pronouncements, that greater judgement shall fall because of the awareness of the people to what the demands of God are. And their subsequent ignoring of the Word. A failure to conform their moral lives to God's standards.

    So, if Jesus called people through the Word proclaimed, to certain standards and held them responsible for their failure to obey. Are we not called to hold forth a certain standard before people? A standard that reveals the depth of who we are and our judgement that we deserve if the moral lives we are living are not changed to conform to God's moral standards?

    Most if not all issues that impinge upon moral standards are issues that are in the public square. John the Baptist clearly denounced moral failures by citing the standard of what God expected. I think no less is expected of us.