Basically, the idea of two kingdoms is a modest one. It says that God rules over everything in His Creation. There are two primary aspects of that rule – the world and His church. While these aspects are not mutually exclusive, God ordinarily rules the affairs of the church in a way that is different from the way he rules secular government and culture. As with any generalization, there are nuances, and some differences in how that is applied. But the difference reflects more the special way God guides His people in a world He says is not their home.

For many, the present discussion about the relationship of the church vis-à-vis the state is, like eschatology, a confusing one.

On first approach, it appears to be about whether or not Christian churches ought be involved in politics. Or, vice versa. A related question is that of involvement of Christians acting in their individual capacity as citizens.

Some would extend the question to the culture generally.

And not without reason. On one hand, Jesus Christ says His Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). On the other, when the Israelites were taken captive, they were told to seek the peace and prosperity of Babylon (Jer. 29:7).

The present discussion is separate from one about a “social” gospel that views church primarily as a means of empowering civil government for social action rather than preaching and teaching Scripture, administering the sacraments, praying, caring for the needy, etc.

Within Reformed churches, the discussion has taken a different turn.

In-house debate turns public

A mostly academic discussion has spilled over into the public realm under the terms “two kingdoms” (2k), and “radical two kingdoms” (R2k).

It is in once sense ironic this is happening at a time in Western history when influence of the Christian church (broadly speaking) in society is in rapid decline. Whether speaking of the nuclear family, sanctity of life, or free religious speech, it appears to be in decline.

Recent debate frames the discussion as if it were between two extremes- total separation of the church (and by implication its people) from this world vs. the church being primarily about transforming government and culture.

This debate presents a radical version of two kingdoms as if it were the historic view of Christianity.  The only alternative presented are the recent, peculiar ideas of intellectuals following late nineteenth/early twentieth century theologian, Dr. Abraham Kuyper. Total separatism vs. total transformationism.

The difficulty is that this R2k does not resemble the historic view it is said to, let alone the teaching of Scripture.

Basically, the idea of two kingdoms is a modest one. It says that God rules over everything in His Creation. There are two primary aspects of that rule – the world and His church. While these aspects are not mutually exclusive, God ordinarily rules the affairs of the church in a way that is different from the way he rules secular government and culture.

As with any generalization, there are nuances, and some differences in how that is applied. But the difference reflects more the special way God guides His people in a world He says is not their home. (Hebrews 13:14).

The radicalized version implies such separation of the world and the church that if a clear biblical moral issue enters the realm of public discussion, Christians must remain silent because it is of this world – a different kingdom.

Scripture relevance to life

One of the assumptions underlying R2k is that Scripture has no authority or relevance outside of the church, i.e. to government, culture, even, when Christians are serving in it.

It implies Christians who take a stand in the public realm on a biblical issue, and perhaps suffer for it, ought not to expect much as a result of their faithfulness (in this world) because they are operating in another kingdom.

One thinks of the biblical account of Daniel before King Darius, refusing to bow to the authority of a king in a way reserved for God alone, contra (Daniel 3).

A cursory study of the Bible suggests it is intended to apply to all of life. Though there are different kinds of authority established by God within His overall authority, there really is no sacred/secular divide.

Take, for example, The Ten Commandments. They are directed at all of mankind, believers and unbelievers. They contain both promises for obedience and consequences for disobedience that fall to families, communities and even whole nations (Proverbs 13:44).

John Calvin

It is curious that promoters of this radicalized view of two kingdoms would cite the Great Protestant Reformation leader, John Calvin, as holding their view.

Calvin’s seminal work, Institutes of the Christian Religion was dedicated to King Francis I of France. Calvin hoped to persuade the king to embrace the Reformed faith for himself, and thereby influence his rule over that nation.

Calvin’s leadership in Geneva, Switzerland, certainly had interplay with the government and culture. For a time, the elders at his church were even elected by the Geneva City Council. Deacons at the church ministered broadly to the community, which included a lot of refugees fleeing religious persecution in various parts of Europe.

At one time in Geneva, his influence extended to shutting down taverns, which were plagued with alcoholism, fighting and vice. They were replaced with “evangelical refreshment places,”¹ where liquor was served, but where also grace was said, and Scripture read. While the experiment did not last, it showed the extent of his involvement in the other kingdom.

To say that Calvin held the radicalized version of 2k seems far fetched.

What to expect of two kingdoms

From this layman’s standpoint, I don’t expect to see churches primarily focused on politics. Or culture. Or the details of specific government legislation. But I do expect in exceptional cases where a clear biblical issue is at stake or where the church is directly affected, there to be freedom for the church to participate.

Even if it that participation spills over into the public sphere. It would seem there is an obligation to do so when governed by the clear authority of Scripture.

Take, for example, a recent US Department of Defense Directive that prevents military chaplains from displaying Bibles on their desks. ²

If Christian churches are sponsoring chaplains in the military and their religious faith is being restricted, they may speak. They must speak.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is one of the historic statements of Christian doctrine and it recognizes the historic two kingdoms view well. While the original version done in the context of seventeenth century British monarchy had even more interplay between the church and the state, the American adopted 1788 version states:

4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.³

It does imply that ordinarily the church will not entangle itself in the affairs of the state.  But it doesn’t say, never. In extraordinary cases it will.

After all, the church is to be a vibrant, light bearing witness to the world. How can that kind of faith happen if it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with it?

¹“John Calvin,” History Learning Site, accessed January 20, 2015, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

²Todd Starnes, “Air Force Officer Told to Remove Bible from Desk,” Townhall.com, May 3, 2013.

³Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXI, Section 4. 1787 ed.

Scott Truax is a free-lance writer living in Cary, N.C. He is a member of Shiloh Presbyterian Church.