I see that Doug Wilson, who is reviewing Jason Stellman’s new book, Dual Citizens, has adopted the unfortunate adjective, “radical,†to tarnish two-kingdom theology.
(For some of Jason’s responses, go here.)
I guess Wilson’s refraining from calling it a disease, as in R2K virus, is a step up in name-calling. But to call two-kingdom theology “radical†is silly.
For starters, it is as old as Protestantism is itself. Now for some Reformed Protestants, historic Protestantism is tainted by Lutheranism. This is indeed a puzzle and deserves greater investigation. What is going on among conservative Presbyterians and Reformed that they so carelessly hurl around “Lutheran†as an epithet?
For the main course, two-kingdom theology among Presbyterians goes all the way back to the Adopting Act of 1729. Yes, the colonial church would eventually revise the Confession of Faith in 1788 on questions surrounding the duties of the civil magistrate. But those reservations were already obvious to the American church in 1729 when the Synod of Philadelphia took a corporate exception to the Standards’ teachings on the civil magistrate in order to adopt the Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the communion’s confession.
One additional consideration is the language of the revision itself. Exactly, how radical is the following (from the revised chapter twenty-three)?
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
I know of no two-kingdom advocate who would dissent from this moderate view of the magistrate’s responsibilities or the civil protection such teaching approves for Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and unbelievers. (We 2k folk, cabal that we are, stay in very close contact.)
On the other hand, the critics of two-kingdom theology prefer this formulation of the civil magistrate (from the original WCF) and regularly accuse two-kingdom folk of bad faith for denying it:
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
Not to be missed here is that this conception of the magistrate not only denies freedom to Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Arminians, and Pentecostals to practice their faith (where Baptists would fit is also uncertain; the National Covenant knew no privileges for anyone denying infant baptism). It also grants Barrack Obama the authority to call and moderate the General Assembly of the PCA. (OPC GA’s generally do not meet at security-rich locations.)
Who’s the radical now?
So all parties should drop “radical†from descriptions of two-kingdom theology. Better terms are “historic,†“American,†“American Presbyterian,†or “mainstream Presbyterian,†words not synonymous with radicalism.
52 Comments
Tim, golly gee, did the original post appeal to Geneva or the 1788 revisions of the WCF?
Drum roll . . . . 1788. So what’s your point. I know of no 2k person who would claim that his or her understanding of the contemporary state is like Calvin’s. I do know of lots of critics who say that the 2k view is a huge departure from Calvin. And then when the 2k folks respond with, “well do you want a state like 1560 Geneva,” people like Tim say, “I’m not sure.”
What 2k people do claim is that Calvin’s teaching on the nature of the church and Christ’s mediatorial kingdom is the theological basis for 2k views. If you think that is so odd, then think that a pre=modern figure like Luther could come up with a 2k doctrine and still believe in a state church. (Constantinianism dies hard.)
Of course, the other point is that we all live on the other side of 1789. Turning back the clock to a pre-revolutionary time is radical.
I’ll leave a response here, as the reply option under your last comment to me disappeared. MY original critique of your post what your 2K notions shouldn’t necessarily be called historic, in that they’re American (see my post from Oct 7 @ 7:38 PM), NOT that it’s represented in Geneva. The Geneva comments were on a different thread.
You said: ‘when the 2k folks respond with, “well do you want a state like 1560 Geneva,†people like Tim say, “I’m not sure.‒ Sorry to say, but I don’t have my biblical political theory completely ironed out. My guess is that there’s a great deal of wisdom at play in Geneva’s statecraft and also a good deal of folly in our own. My American sensibilities don’t prove that the American way is better or correct. You can appeal to them, as you often do, but contemporary sensibilities are so often viewed as indications not of truth, but of falsehood.
Anyway, Dr. Hart, thanks for the discussion. I’ll be around. I’m trying to follow Wilson and Stellman and see if I can’t learn a thing or two.
2 Trackbacks
[...] They’ll be calling you a radical… [...]
[...] the Radical? Posted on October 7, 2009 by R. Scott Clark Darryl replies to his Royal Dougness on allegedly “radical” two-kingdoms ethics. I particularly like [...]