2 Kingdoms vs Theonomy

The issue of the relation of ideologies or religions to a pluralistic state is an old and tricky issue. There are a lot of different answers to the problem, here I’ll oversimplify the positions to two, 1) two kingdoms theology and 2) theonomy.

Two Kingdoms

The Two Kingdoms view states simply that Christians are here as citizens of the Kingdom of God and that as Christians their goal is to build the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven, same difference). However, the Kingdom of God is not the same thing as the Kingdom(s) of Earth. The earthly kingdoms, the political entities we currently have, are their own different realm. However, we as Christians are members of both. This means we have a dual citizenship; we can be members of two ‘kingdoms’ at once and seek both of their goods. So as Christians we seek the good of the Kingdom of God, and as, say, Americans, we seek the good of America.

The important thing to note here is (on the 2 Kingdoms view) we are not trying to Christianize the political kingdoms of the earth. There is a clear delineation between the rules the Kingdom of Heaven has, i.e., the rules that a church should abide by, and the rules a political entity should abide by. So simply because a church should make ‘illegal’ things like sexual immorality and lying, doesn’t mean that the government should as well. Perhaps the government should as well, but that is a different sort of analysis.

The Two Kingdoms view points towards passages like John 18:36 for support:

“Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Theonomy

On the other hand, a view that I’ll call Theonomy for simplicity’s sake (Theonomy literally means God’s Law and can have a more specific meaning than what I’m giving here, see also the related Neo-Kuyperian and Transformationalist views), points out that God is in charge of the whole world not just the kingdom of heaven. Further, God wants what is best for the whole world, and He has told us how He wants the world to work, and has even charged Christians to act accordingly. When you put those three things together it seems like Christians should try and remake the world according to God’s rules. Why? Because 1) God has the right to remake the world as He wants (He owns it after all) and 2) doing it God’s way is actually better for everybody in the world.

What this means is there is no clean line between the Kingdom of Heaven and the political entities on earth. The Christian is supposed to promote the Kingdom of Heaven, which is here to remake all parts of human existence for the good of everyone to the glory of God. But political entities also need to be redeemed for Christ, and not having them act Christianly is bad for everyone. Consequently, it is the duty of the Christian to try and have politics and political power match God’s laws.

Theonomists point towards passages like Matthew 28:18-20 in support of their view:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.

Issues to consider:

For some this is a very difficult choice to make. There are good points on both sides. But for others, depending on background and personality, the choice seems quite obvious. “Well obviously Jesus wasn’t setting up a physical political kingdom here on earth so we shouldn’t try either!” Or on the other hand, “Obviously Jesus is king of the whole earth, and the whole earth should bow before him. That’s the only way we’re going to find peace and prosperity anyway!”

There are further questions both sides need to think about. For instance, it seems quite plain in scripture that Christians ought to treat people in the church and those outside the church differently. Consider 1 Corinthians 5:

9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.

Here we see a clear delineation between those inside and those outside. The church judges those inside the church and punishes them, while they don’t judge those outside and doesn’t punish them. So, the question here for theonomists is pretty straightforward, how do you pursue theonomy in a way that respects these different spheres of authority?

But two kingdoms views aren’t free from difficulties themselves. The reason is simple, we know that following God’s laws is good for the world. Both intrinsically, because the world is set up in such that it runs better God’s way, and extrinsically, in that God judges the world. Consider Leviticus 18:

24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for the people I am driving out before you have defiled themselves in all these ways. 25 Because the entire land has become defiled, I am punishing the people who live there. I will cause the land to vomit them out. 26 You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you.

27 “All these detestable activities are practiced by the people of the land where I am taking you, and this is how the land has become defiled. 28 So do not defile the land and give it a reason to vomit you out, as it will vomit out the people who live there now.

Now the point here isn’t to get into what all these ‘detestable activities’ are. The point is that God punishes these peoples, these countries, for acting in such a way that is evil. It doesn’t matter that those peoples weren’t God’s chosen people, that they weren’t the ones God had supernaturally given his law to. They did terrible things and they should have known better. Consequently, the land itself was defiled, and the land itself throws out the people residing on it.

The question here for 2 Kingdomists is likewise straightforward. Aren’t we supposed to act for the good of the people and our land? If we don’t protest defiling actions and laws, and try to make better ones, aren’t we just setting up our country for evil times and punishment? How can we say we love our neighbors but not try and prevent them from being run over by a truck in the street?

What to do:

So what are we supposed to do? What side do we choose? But… do we even have to choose a side? While, ideally, it would be nice for all of us to have a thoroughly worked out consistent theology of government and political action in a democratic republic, odds are most of us aren’t going to get there. But this is not necessarily a bad thing; many times we won’t need to have such a detailed system in order to act.

So in lieu of trying to provide such a system, I’ll give a few concluding thoughts to help think through how to act.

1 Value judgements and moral judgements are unavoidable in governing.

The idea that we can have a value neutral system of governing is a pipe dream. To make one law rather than another is to say that one law is better / more valuable than another. But how do we know what makes one law more valuable than another? Answering that question brings up an entire nexus of judgments about what morality is, what value is, whether God exists, what our goals and responsibilities are, etc. Each person must answer these questions according to their worldview, their philosophy and theology.

Consequently, Christians should not feel bad about voting according to specifically Christian values and morals. Everybody must vote according to their own non-neutral worldview mores, there is no avoiding it. The disagreement between 2 Kingdoms and Theonomy is not really whether we should act politically according to Christian values, but what those Christian political values are in the first place.

2) A Christian view of the purpose of government is to punish evil and praise the good.

This comes straight from 1 Peter 2, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to honor those who do good.” The purpose of the governor is to punish evil and praise good. We find a similar thing in Romans 13, “The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.” The purpose of government is the good of the people, in particular to punish wrongdoing.

We can keep this in mind as we sift policy and vote. We can ask what is the good that each candidate is pursuing. And further, do the laws or policies they support punish wrongdoing?

3 Christian values are true, good, and beneficial

Christians do not have to be ashamed of their views even if they are out of step with popular culture. Christianity is always going to be out of step with some part the world. So Christians needn’t feel like they are acting selfishly simply because they are acting Christianly. If Christianity is true, it is what is the most good for all people and is the best way of being altruistic.

4 However, simply because something is a true Christian principle does not mean that codifying it into law is beneficial.

This might sound like a contradiction with 3) but its not. For instance, there are some goods that one can only achieve after becoming a Christian. Consequently, commanding it of non-Christians is unhelpful and impossible. To take an obvious example, Eph 5:18 demands that people “Be filled with the Spirit.” But this can only happen for Christians. Since we can’t force people into being Christian (as by definition, following Christ is a free choice, even for Calvinists 😉 we can’t command them to be filled with the Spirit.

A different way we see 4) at work is in Romans 7. There Paul describes how making even a good law can backfire. Because we are sinful obstinate people, the mere command to do something can actually make people want to bend over backward and do the opposite. We all know the feeling of having someone say “Don’t touch that thing!” and immediately wanting to touch it—even when we had no desire before. If our goal for government is to discourage the evil, then we have to recognize that simply making a new law against it won’t necessarily achieve that goal. We shouldn’t even be surprised if making a new law sometimes makes the situation worse. Does this mean we shouldn’t outlaw anything? No. It’s just to recognize that simply making a just law isn’t enough, there might well be more negative consequences than positive. Indeed, governing is incredibly hard.

5 God despises oppression, corruption, and unfairness

If you read the Old Testament, there will be a few things that stand out to you. First is how weird and different it is from today (unless you’ve read it a lot). Second is that God really doesn’t like idols and people betraying him to follow other gods. A third is that God despises oppression, injustice, corruption, etc. This theme pops up everywhere. To take just a couple of examples, “Fear the Lord and judge with integrity, for the Lord our God does not tolerate perverted justice, partiality, or the taking of bribes” (2 Chr. 19:7); “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Enough, you princes of Israel! Stop your violence and oppression and do what is just and right. Quit robbing and cheating my people out of their land. Stop expelling them from their homes, says the Sovereign Lord” (Ezk. 45:9).

These are universal principles. We can always side against oppression, corruption, partiality, and unfairness. Now, to be fair, figuring out what exactly counts as oppression, etc., and what does not can be quite difficult. But for the Christian, the ends do not justify the means. We don’t lie or cheat or steal to get what is right. A Christian never has to apologize for standing against oppression of the weak, or against bribery, or malicious use of government—regardless of what side it comes from.

6 Responsibility starts at home, but does not end there

One of the trickiest parts of living in this world is trying to decide what to do with resources. They are limited, and even if we don’t live in a zero-sum game, we still have to choose between goods, where to put our resources, and where not to. The general Biblical principle is to start at home and work outwards. This is classically summed up in a pithy reuse of Acts 1:8, we are to be witness in Judea, and Samaria, to the uttermost parts of the earth.

When Paul is talking about taking care of others he talks about how you should help the poor and destitute in the church. But even more important is taking care of your own relatives. Indeed, “But those who won’t care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers” (1 Tim 5:8). Wow, to not take care of your own family is to deny Christ! So, take care of your family, then take care of those in your church family, and then those outside. So similarly with government, it should care for local first, and then must move outwards to the other parts of the earth.

Is this an exhaustive list? Hardly. Its just a start, but hopefully a helpful start to deciding what a Christian ought to stand for and vote for—regardless of whether one falls more on the 2 kingdoms or theonomy side of the spectrum.

This is our second-to-last week! Next week we sum up this wide ranging study, and look at how all the threads come together.