Terry Eastland, the publisher of The Weekly Standard, recently wrote a review essay of James Davison Hunter’s, To Change the World, and David VanDrunen’s, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. After reading these books, Eastland is scratching his head that critics of transformationalism like Hunter are so dismissive of 2k theology. He writes:
Oddly, To Change the World has little to say about two kingdoms, notwithstanding its rooting in a millennium and a half of Christian reflection. And what the book does say is a caricature: According to Hunter, the doctrine leads its adherents “to increasingly withdraw into their own communities with less and less interest in any engagement with the larger world.†Hunter fails to consider such evidence as VanDrunen has weighed and which supports the proposition that two-kingdoms doctrine encompasses the idea of promoting the welfare of society, or as Hunter himself might say, its “overall flourishing.â€
That James Davison Hunter has no affinity for two kingdoms would seem surprising, since it is a doctrine that offers no support to the world changers he challenges at every turn. On the other hand, there is an ambiguity in To Change the World that makes one wonder whether Hunter’s dismissal of two kingdoms is a product of his sympathy for, yes, world changing. The ambiguity arises in his discussion of faithful presence, and it concerns the critical issue of redemption. For while Hunter emphasizes that “culture-making .  .  . is not, strictly speaking, redemptive or salvific in character,†and that “world building†is not to be confused with “building the Kingdom of God,†he also says that the church should “offer an alternative vision and direction†for prevailing cultural institutions and seek “to retrieve the good to which modern institutions and ideas implicitly or explicitly aspire.†Putting aside whether the church is even capable of offering such vision and direction, or of retrieving such goods, it would seem without authority to do so—unless it is now being charged with (to borrow a phrase) “redeeming the culture.â€
Such is the allure of transformationalism that one of its most vigorous critics seems unable to abandon it. Even so, Hunter’s book is not without its redeeming features, notably a critique of the modern world that strikingly illumines the challenges that “difference†and “dissolution†pose for Christian engagement. Difference, meaning pluralism, “creates social conditions in which God is no longer an inevitability,†a development that renders “God-talk†with “little or no resonance†outside the church. Dissolution, meaning “the deconstruction of the most basic assumptions about reality,†makes it more difficult to “imagine that there is a spiritual reality more real than the material world we live in.â€
Likewise, Hunter’s theology of faithful presence takes inspiration from the sensible teaching of that Epistle to Diognetus, and before that, from the wise counsel of Jeremiah. In his letter to the exiles living in the very different culture of Babylon—its king a pagan gentile—the prophet exhorted them to “seek [its] welfare†on the ground that “in its welfare you will find your welfare.â€
David VanDrunen’s study is worth commending on account of the achievement it represents, for the two kingdoms doctrine, with its fascinating lineage, has not had the historian of theological acumen it deserved until now.
Like I wondered last week, all this favorable attention to 2k is scary. If it becomes too popular, it will surely lose its saltiness. Then again, we always have the Baylys, Kloostermans, and Brets of the world to keep us sinful.
Old Life 
It seems that Hunter’s problem with 2k is what he interprets as world-flight. But if by worldly engagement one means something mainly political, legal or legislative as opposed to humanly, culturally or commonly, he ironically gives some insight as to why some may be less inclined to “engage.†From pages 102-109 in a section he calls The Turn to Politics:
If modern politics is the sphere of leadership, influence, and activity surrounding the state, politicization is the turn toward law and politics—the instrumentality of the state—to find solutions to public problems…Institutions such as popular and higher education, philanthropy, science, the arts, and even the family understand their identity and function according to what the state does or does not permit. Groups (women, minorities, gays, Christians, etc.) have validity not only but increasingly through the rights conferred by the state. Issues gain legitimacy only when recognized by law and public policy. It is only logical, then, that problems affecting the society are seen increasingly, if not primarily through the prism of the state; that is, in terms of how law, policy, and politics can solve them.
In short, the state has increasingly become the incarnation of the public weal. Its laws, policies, and procedures have become the predominant framework by which we understand collective life, its members, its leading organizations, its problems, and its issues.
…Now, of course, the commonly accepted view is that everyone must be involved because the primary means to get anything done in society or to effect change in any area of social life, is through law and politics…
…In this turn, we have come to ascribe impossibly high expectations to politics. As I noted before, we look to politics as the leading way to address our common problems and implicitly hope that politics, broadly defined, will actually solve those problems.
…When one boils it all down, politicization means that the final arbiter within most social life is the coercive power of the state. When politicization is oriented toward furthering the specific interests of the group without an appeal to the common weal, when its means of mobilizing the uncommitted is through fear, and when the pursuit of agendas depends more on the vilification of opponents than on the affirmation of higher ideals, power is stripped to its most elemental forms…The politicization of everything is an indirect measure of the loss of a common culture and, in turn, the competition among factions to dominate others on their own terms. Our times amply demonstrate that it is far easier to force one’s will on others through legal and political means or to threaten to do so than it is to persuade them or negotiate compromise with them.
…Slowly, often imperceptivity, there has been a turn toward law and politics as the primary way of understanding all aspects of collective life. Nothing catalyzed this tendency more than the Depression-era New Deal. The tendency now effects conservatives every bit as much as it does liberals; those who favor small government as it does those who want larger government. It has effected everyone’s language, imagination, and expectations, not least conservatives who, like others, look to law, policy, and political process as the structure and resolution to their concerns and grievances; who look to politics as the framework of self-validation and self-understanding and ideology as the framework for understanding others.
…I don’t want to overstate the case—clearly what I describe here are not fully and comprehensively established realities; all is not power and ressentiment [resentment that involves a combination of anger, envy, hate, rage, and revenge as the motive of political action]. What makes it more complicated (and interesting) is that there are genuinely public-spirited people on all sides of all issues. Indeed most people are not resentment-filled and power hungry. But consistent with my view all along is the fact that the motives of individuals and the structures of culture are not the same thing. In terms of the structures of our political culture, these dynamics are clearly present and represent increasingly significant tendencies.
LikeLike
Zrim, I think one has to specify what version of 2K is at issue. You have a materially different interpreation of 2K than David Van Drunen. You have argued that the only “cultural engagement” you approve of under 2K principles is family, church, and voting. Beyond that, you have been critical of all other forms of engagement, dismissing them as “culture war.” Your version of 2K can, I think reasonably be characterized as “world-flight,” much closer to Mennonite 2K theology than that represented by Westminster Seminary West. If you disagree, I’m not sure where your version of 2k would programatically differ from that of the Mennonites.
By way of contrast, Dr. VanDrunen embraces a more throughgoing politico-cultural engagement by Christians as compatible with 2K principels. Based on what you have written, I would infer that you must take issue with this Van Drunen quote:
“However, this is not to say that we as Christians should not participate in the culture war, and it does not mean that all the methods or goals of those on the frontlines of the culture war are wrong. Not at all. God commanded the people in Jeremiah 29 to seek the peace and prosperity of the city in which they lived, and this applies to us as well. We know that a nation with increasing numbers of cocaine-addicts, abortions, thefts, child-abuse cases, illiterates, etc., etc., will not retain desirable levels of peace and prosperity for long. Therefore we do have an obligation to do things which will, if not eliminate such things, at least substantially reduce their rate of occurrence. The peace and prosperity of our society, not to mention our personal peace and prosperity, depend on it. And the political sphere certainly is one of the institutions of culture which will make its indelible stamp on the peace and prosperity of the society. Christians therefore should have an interest in the political process when their form of government allows it, as ours does. To turn our backs on politics would mean to turn our backs in part to the command of God to seek the peace and prosperity of our nation. We may debate amongst ourselves which political positions to promote and how much emphasis should be given to the political process, but the interest and involvement in politics which we see among the “religious right†is in itself a good thing. But, it must always be accompanied by the realization that we are participating in the politics of Babylon. What should we hope to gain by our cultural, including political, activity? Only a relatively better life for society, ourselves, and our children in the years to come than what we would otherwise face. We seek not the destruction of our enemies, but simply a modestly better society which in the future will face exactly the same kinds of threats and require the same sort of opposition. Perhaps we can turn America back to the culture of the 1950′s. But the 1960′s will always follow.”
LikeLike
Perhaps we can turn America back to the culture of the 1950′s. But the 1960′s will always follow.
Hey … that’s my line!
LikeLike
CVD, yes, Paul has made the same argument against me. I’m familiar with the quote, but like I’ve tried explaining to him, while I agree with the larger point DVD is making here, I must admit I find the language a little unfortunate. That is, if by “culture war” we mean what Hunter descibes as “the turn to politics,” etc.
So, while is quite true that politics is one way Christians may legitimately participate in the wider world, it is also true that some believers have legitimate skepticism about not just the nature of the political process but also the way it is wielded by all manner of those participating in the common sphere. One might respond to Hunter’s own fear that two kingdom theology begets world-flight piety by pointing to his own insights into what has been made of the political tools to the relative deconstruction of the common weal and collective life. If this is all true then what some two kingdom adherents are trying to say is that, yes, believers may work shoulder-to-shoulder with unbelievers (and believers) in the common sphere, contra any idea that the solution is to whirl away in Christian ghetto’s. But while some may choose to rub shoulders with those who have sunnier views of politics and legislation still others of us find more in common with those unbelievers (and believers) who have a much more tamped down outlook and who think Hunter has put his finger on what ails the modern era.
It’s all right if you want to admit to a more optimistic view of politics and legislation. I just wish you’d let me call mine skeptical instead of Mennonite.
LikeLike
“So, while is quite true that politics is one way Christians may legitimately participate in the wider world”
As CVD knows, this is Zrim saying one thing while taking it away every chance he gets. Has anyone ever seen Zrim once endorse or claim legitimate or not harp on those who endorse DVD’s more thorough-going engagement with culture? Hunter’s criticism applies to Zrim and Eastland’s defense of DVD isn’t a defense of Zrim.
LikeLike
Let’s at least give equal treatment. Zrim rails against those who protest abortion clinics carrying signs of aborted fetuses. He claims it is unbecoming and incivil and unneighborly. Okay, let’s put aside debate on this matter. What I want to see is a post where Zrim criticises liberals and busy-bodies who show pictures of throat cancer victims smoking through the hole in their neck. How is that any less unbecoming and unneighborly? Why is it that Zrim only picks on “culture war,” “conservative,” and “Christian right” cultural engagement? 🙂
LikeLike
Because they’re so friggin’ loud, Paul. They want attention, I’m only helping out. But if what you demand is equal opportunity criticism (how egalitarian of you) then what goes for funda-evangelical James Dobson also goes for progressive-evangie Jim Wallis. Do I really need to write a post though? Seems like a lot of work.
“Rails”? Methinks you protest too much. But I tend to think this interpretation simply reflects the discomfort of someone whose sympathies are being questioned.
LikeLike
Paul, Zrim doesn’t write posts here. Plus, liberals don’t read Old Life.
LikeLike
Zrim blogs at CO, and the comment could apply there. But, he posts here; he posts comments here, and so could make the point here. Also, he runs around to several politically conservative blogs and makes his points (he’s actually a pretty active questist), so he could do the same to politically liberal blogs. Anyway, are you saying Stellman doesn’t read Old Life? Don’t sell yourself short, Darryl, Old Life is one cool blog.
LikeLike
“Because they’re so friggin’ loud, Paul. They want attention, I’m only helping out.”
You’re helping out even if they don’t think they need it our want it? I have some neighbors like that, how annoying.
Anyway, I await your post railing against the unbecoming and unneighborly anti-smoking signs. Those are probably more unbecoming. People chose to smoke, babies don’t choose to get sucked up by a vacuum and then chopped into little pieces.
LikeLike
Well, maybe you’re right, Paul, maybe we should just tally up moral merit points and throw our weight behind whoever has the most points, and if anyone has any reservations about anything the winners do or say we should tell him to sit down and shut up.
LikeLike
Zrim, telling people to sit down and shut up is the tactic of those who don’t value the hard work that goes into giving arguments, that’s why you’re such a master of that tactic 🙂
And what’s the difference between lining up behind those with the most moral merit points and lining against those with the most moral merit points? The latter looks like choosing who to morally berate based on their status as endorsing a conservative right wing talking point. The latter looks similar to the midset of those who suffer from “white guilt.” Seems like you have a need to show the modern day Menckens that you’re no teetotaling 6-day fundy. Get them to write op-ed peices on how hip and cool and open-minded you are. The only problem is, you’re no Machen. He was a worldviewer who had a high respect for man’s natural reasoning abilities. Don’t confuse law/gospel dichotomy for a lawgic/gospel dichotomy, homie. 🙂
LikeLike
Is that kind of like- I know John Kennedy, I have worked with John Kennedy and you’re no John Kennedy? The crowd is stunned and in silence. Whoa!!!!
LikeLike
I don’t know, Paul, whenever I read Machen he doesn’t read at all like a logician, arranging tidy bits and pieces, plugging them in, adding up the points and snuggling down safely into the sums and quotients. His writing seems much more ideational and at ease with not pedantically defining every. single. term. to the point that the point is lost. The outlook just doesn’t seem as concerned for lining up behind those who enjoy the majority morality or plaudits. For some reason, I just can’t see him holding a picket sign, he just seemes way more dignified than that.
And he seems much more ecclesiastical than philosophical. He seems to understand that, while philosophy has its rightful place, we actually inhabit the church, not our minds (contra the logician) nor our experiences (contra the evangelical-liberal).
LikeLike
Zrim, I guess that’s because you have a deficient view of what logic is and it’s development. If you are seriously asserted that Machen denied the idea that if you have a valid form and true premises then the conclusion *must* be true, I’d love to hear your reference for that.
As Darryl’s bio shows, he *argued* (not in your sophist sense of the word) for his views and made philosophical points when the time required. he didn’t just run around announcing conclusions bereft of attendent supporting and inferring reasons. And if he had been shown to offer a fallacious argument, he’d change things, not stubbornly call names and tell the guy that he’s a logician on Muscle Beach trying to kick sand into the face of the weaklings. And if he ran into an argument that had true premises and a valid form, and he could not show that it was invalid or which premise was false, he’d accept the conclusion.
Anyway, I don’t think he’d hold a picket sign either.
LikeLike
Zrim: His writing seems much more ideational and at ease with not pedantically defining every. single. term. to the point that the point is lost.
Sorry to intrude here, but aren’t you just saying that Paul’s method of thinking is bad and yours is good? How very non-2k-ish.
LikeLike
I love this place and love everyone who posts here- it is easy to be an incognito blogger. It’s tougher when you are face to face. Along with Nevin’s book I have also ordered The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six Lessons On How to Recognize Bad Reasoning; Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction in Logical Thinking (Geisler and Brooks); A Rule Book For Arguments- Weston. And I have been browsing through my 1976 copy of Copi’s Introduction to Logic which I still have from my days at Northwestern Michigan College in Traverse City, Michigan. I also am planning on reading Robert Kane’s A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will (which came in the mail last week) after I finish Always Reformed. This all should keep me quite busy for awhile.
LikeLike
Paul says: “And if he had been shown to offer a fallacious argument, he’d change things, not stubbornly call names and tell the guy that he’s a logician on Muscle Beach trying to kick sand into the face of the weaklings.”
That was pretty funny- and Darryl does not think your sense of humor is that good. Maybe not so original and creative though. I know Bill Murray. I have worked with Bill Murray. And your no Bill Murray.
LikeLike
“we always have the Baylys, Kloostermans, and Brets of the world to keep us sinful?”
What does this mean?
LikeLike