Kevin DeYoung, over at DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed, has weighed two-kingdom theology and Kuyperianism in the balance and hopes for a middle ground in the following way:
I am loathe to be an apologist for the status quo, or to throw cold water on young people who want to see abortion eradicated or dream of kids in Africa having clean water. I donâ€™t think itâ€™s wrong for a church to have an adoption ministry or an addiction recovery program. I think changing structures, institutions, and ideas not only helps people but can pave the way for gospel reception.
Perhaps there is aâ€“I can’t believe Iâ€™m going to say itâ€“a middle ground. I say, letâ€™s not lose the heart of the gospel, divine self-satisfaction through self-substitution. And letâ€™s not apologize for challenging Christians to show this same kind of dying love to others. Letâ€™s not be embarrassed by the doctrine of hell and the necessity of repentance and regeneration. And letâ€™s not be afraid to do good to all people, especially to the household of faith. Letâ€™s work against the injustices and suffering in our day, and letâ€™s be realistic that the poor, as Jesus said, will always be among us. Bottom line: letâ€™s work for change where God calls us and gifts us, but letâ€™s not forget that the Great Commission is go into the world and make disciples, not go into the world and build the kingdom.
Is recovering the dignity of the sacred office (as opposed to every member ministry), returning to psalm-singing (as opposed to hymns or praise songs), or restoring the Sunday evening worship service simply preserving the status quo? Or is judging a Christian profession by one’s quiet and ordinary work rather than whether you are making a difference really so widely accepted that Kuyperian transformationalism is a welcome relief? If so, beam me up, Kevin.