In the Sept/Oct (2011) issue of Modern Reformation, Ken Jones has a fine essay about political activism in the black church. While the theological and sociological analysis he presents in the bulk of his article is worthy of a series of blog posts on its own, I was struck by what he wrote in his first sub-section entitled “Two-Kingdoms Theology.”
I thought this was a fine description of how Two-Kingdom advocates view cultural engagement and hopefully disabuses some of the notion that one who values issues of social justice has no option but to run from the supposedly escapist “R2KT” being proposed by those radicals in Southern California!
The church as established by Christ is the covenant community consisting of individuals united to Christ by faith in the gospel. Its function is to preach the Word of God (law and gospel), make disciples, administer the sacraments, and worship the Triune God in spirit and in truth. As an institution, the church is distinct from any institution or organization of human origin; it is the embassy of the kingdom of heaven, and its agenda is a heavenly one. Defining the church’s agenda in such a specific way has left some with the impression that we are not concerned about or committed to social issues in the culture at large. Two-kingdoms proponents acknowledge that “the common kingdom,” which consists of governments and institutions of human origin, is also under the sovereign rule of God but with a different purpose and agenda than that of the church. It is precisely at the point of defining the institutional church’s agenda (from a focused and heavenly perspective, or a broader cultural or social perspective) that the two-kingdoms paradigm is either embraced or rejected. I would say that many who hesitate to accept the two-kingdoms motif misunderstand the distinction in a few crucial ways, one of which is the tendency to associate two-kingdoms theology with noninvolvement in the common kingdom. Those who make this mistake will then often point to biblical passages that speak of justice (in a social sense), relieving oppression, feeding the hungry, and caring for the poor, and claim that these passages suggest a broader agenda for the church. The error in view here is assigning to the church what is actually assigned to every human being, including members of the church who are, after all, citizens of both kingdoms.
Part of the church’s duty is to equip its members to live for the glory of God in both kingdoms. The faithful preaching and teaching of the Word of God (law and gospel) should produce Christians who are engaged in the common kingdom and participate in those institutions of the poor, and environmental concerns – all of which should be done for the good of the common kingdom.
Ken Jones, “Analyzing the Social Political Activism of the Black Church in Light of the Two-Kingdoms Motif,” Modern Reformation vol. 20, issue 5 (2011): Pg. 36. (Bold Emphasis Added.)
I really thought that Jones’ concluding paragraph was also quite fine. After contrasting the introduction of franchises by Magic Johnson into areas not usually targeted by those franchises, and senior-citizen centers run by black churches who had long since abandoned the gospel of Christ, he concludes:
Black churches that define their purpose by a broader cultural agenda run the risk of making better disciples for their programs, platforms, and projects than for the kingdom of God. Their concerns for social justice and improvement of economic conditions are noble and God-glorifying, but the best thing the church can do for those situations is to raise the consciousness of its members to see the sanctity of serving our neighbors and contributing to the common good in the name of the common kingdom to the glory of our God.
“Analyzing the Social Political Activism,” Pg. 38.
On my commute home from school, I’ve driven through neighborhoods littered with churches committed to making a difference in the community. The neighborhoods still look terrible, but what is infinitely worse, is that the sermon titles strewn across church marquee after church marquee sound less like the words of Jesus or Paul, and more like those of some the latest popular financial/motivational speaker!
________________
Andrew
Very interesting Andrew!
This is quite similar to Kuyper’s notion of sphere sovereignty (one kingdom, multiple spheres), and also the Kuyperian distinction between the church as institute and the church as organism. I always find it odd when Kuyperians miss this central plank in Kuyper’s work. As an institute the church has a very limited scope of work (i.e., preaching, sacraments, discipline). However, the church as organism (i.e., the individual people who make up the church and practice their vocations “in the world”) is called to work for justice, etc.
Anyway, very interesting.
Thanks for the comment, Nevada.
I’ve come to see the institute/organism distinction in Kuyper, Bavinck and Berkhof as such a helpful one and one that fits well with the way the word “church” is used in Reformed theology. (Even Art. 6 of the Belgic Confession seems to me to imply the “church” as organism rather than as institute, but perhaps someone could make a case for the opposite.) I know that efforts have been made by some in the 2K fold to downplay (or even undermine) the institute/organism distinction, but I’ve found those pretty unconvincing.
At the end of the day, I really like how Jones speaks of equipping believers to live to God’s glory in both kingdoms. This really seems to help show that there are shades of Transformationalism and Two-Kingdom Theology that sit quite close together both in how they describe themselves and in how they practice their position.
Important Posts around the Web…
The Reformed Reader has two great posts. The first one is dealing with how to distinguish Christ and Moses, from The Pearl of Christian Comfort. The second post deals with a recent Modern Reformation article by Ken Jones, clearing up the misconceptions…
Great post.
FYI- In the same issue of Modern Reformation in which this piece by Jones appears, David VanDrunen has an article that touches upon the organic/institutional church distinction. His remarks are insightful.
Also, yesterday on our local NPR station, I heard them use the slogan “engaging the culture, changing the world…NPR.” Sounded almost identical to the slogan of some local churches I know.
Hey Austin,
Yes – I saw the article. It was really steller!
I hate to say it, but I think he’s reading Bavinck on the organic/institutional distinction a bit selectively. I think Bavinck’s articulation of this causes a bit of trouble for his (otherwise very erudite) approach. After reading it, though, I’m wanting to go back and re-read Bavinck on the matter just to make sure. DVD is really the expert on these matters and I don’t pretend to be an ethicist or systematician. Still, I know that when any of us have an issue we feel strongly about, it is easy to have blind spots.
Andrew-
Yea, that article was the first time I had heard someone read Bavinck that way, and the organic church distinction that way. It definitely has me chewin’ the cud.
An advantage of 2k is that it allows believers to have very different ideas about how the temporal order should be arranged and carried out generally. As a 2ker, I do wonder if those of us who take a much more moderate and subdued notion about what can be expected in the temporal age, as well as a healthy agnosticism about the power of politics, are to blame for some of 2k’s bad reputation? Some of us have experienced some pretty harsh vitriol by even other self-described 2kers who seem every bit as optimistic about notions of social justice and the power of politics.
Hey Zrim. Yep – the freedom allowed by the 2k position is definitely a plus.
As for your other point – that’s really interesting. My experience has been somewhat different. I’ve found most of the vitriol is poured out by decidedly anti-2k people who see no variety within the 2k position and think that everyone who associates with Ref2KT is some kind of pre-trib-rapture-dispy-escapist type. This is why I found Ken Jones’ section really good; it seems to speak to this mistake.
I think you’re right; being moderate and subdued is the key. When is it ever fair for people to collapse a position into its most extreme form and then criticize everyone as though they too were extremists? I’ve met many Muslims who denounce Islamic Terrorists as sinning against Allah, and yet so often people treat all Muslims as crypto-suicide-bombers. (Of course many people do this to us as well when they act like all pro-life Christians are crypto-abortion-doctor-killers.) Still, it is helpful when the straw-men are left back in the barn.