 No bio information available for this author. |
|
| Largely written in response to the charge that Rome was being destroyed by the barbarians because the former had just officially embraced Christianity, the Bishop of Hippo (a city in northern Africa) responded with his classic, The City of God. In that work, Augustine (354-430) announced that he had hereby "taken upon myself the task of defending the glorious City of God against those who prefer their own gods to the Founder of that City. I treat of it both as it exists in this world of time, a stranger among the ungodly, living by faith, and as it stands in the security of its everlasting seat" (Preface to Book 1).
|
- There is only one legitimate kingdom: the Kingdom of Christ. All other kingdoms are in rebellion against the True King. There is the City of God, and on the other hand, the City of Man. The City of Rebellious, Autonomous Man. Dr. Bruce Ashford of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary sums up Augustine:
- First, Augustine argued, all of human society can be divided into two cities—the City of Man and the City of God. Second, these twin cities are divided by two basic loves—the love of God and the love of idols. Third, the first man, Adam, embodied the dispositions of both of these cities which soon became implicit in Cain and Abel (which story is paralleled by that of Romulus’ murder of Remus). Fourth, man is drawn toward what he truly loves—either God or goods—and his chosen love locates him in either the City of Man or the City of God. Fifth, each of the two cities has a final destination, either eternal life or eternal death. Those persons in the City of Man seek their happiness in temporal things while those in the City of God seek theirs in an eternal
Kingdom. Sixth, Jesus Christ will destroy the Beast and bring an end to history as we know it, at which time citizens of the City of God receive eternal life and citizens of the City of Man receive eternal torment.
- Does the "City of Man" -- the city of idolatry, the city of murder, the city of greed, the city of the Beast, the city of hell -- have a divine right to exist? Or does it have a divine duty to repent and become a part of the City of God? As Cato might have put it, "The City of Man must be destroyed!" Or as Paul might have put it, "Put the old man to death."
|
| The earthly cities, taking their cue from the history of human rebellion from the fall to Babel to pagan Rome, know only power, not grace. They all belong to "the city of this world, a city which aims at dominion" and is itself dominated by a lust for power. Because of God's providential restraint, however, even this earthly city is capable of generating culture, civic morality and justice, as well as other essential characteristics of human community. |
Technically it is true that God restrains the evil inherent in the City of Rebellion. Whoever designed the Roman Coliseum made sure that even the fans in the bleachers could see the blood of Christians. Hitler hired a great cinematographer. The question is, could "culture, civic morality and justice, as well as other essential characteristics of human community" be generated by Germans in a Free Market without Hitler's guidance? Would it have been OK for Lutherans to get these things out of the Bible, instead of Mein Kampf ? |
| With this perspective, clearly distinguishing between the nature, goals, and methods of both kingdoms, Augustine was able to hold out optimism about what Christians could do in the fallen world around them while not confusing the heavenly kingdom and its earthly manifestation in the present (the Church) with the kingdoms of this world. |
Frequently in his writings, Horton seems concerned, even agitated, about the dangerous likelihood that someone is going to "confuse" the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of the Anti-Christ. Ironically, the people he is most worried about -- the people he thinks are most likely to "confuse" the "two kingdoms" -- are precisely those who seek to convert, put to death, resurrect, and make disciples of the kingdoms of this world. |
| What a different approach this was from Jerome, Augustine's famous contemporary, who exclaimed, "What is to become of the Church now that Rome has fallen?" There was for Jerome a certain correspondence between Rome and the kingdom of God. Hadn't Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion? Here, the big difference between pagan and "Christian" Rome was that idols were worshiped in the former and God alone was worshiped in the latter. |
Rome cannot become Christian until it first dies to secularism and archism and is raised as an entity that Caesar would regard as an anti-empire. |
| But for Augustine, the differences were much greater. Although he himself doesn't seem to have recognized the full implications of his message, Augustine said that even a "Christian" nation is still a kingdom under judgment, a kingdom of power and domination to be sharply distinguished from the kingdom of Christ and its progress through grace rather than glory. |
If "grace rather than glory" is equivalent to "God's Law rather than man's law," we have a winner. "Service rather than slavery." "Vine & Fig Tree rather than secular socialism. |
| Augustine's theological conviction at this point made him view sacked Rome as a mission field rather than a battlefield. Viewed in terms of the latter, one such as Jerome could only conclude that a devastating blow had been dealt to Christ's cause. But viewed from Augustine's perspective, God had brought the pagans to the missionaries! |
Augustine joined Jerome in worrying about the Fall of Rome. The better perspective was that of Salvian the Presbyter. |
| In North America today (as in many other formerly "Christian" parts of the world), this issue is as acute as it was in the fourth and fifth centuries. "Christendom" is over—and for those of us who worry that this very notion is bad theology leading to horrible consequences for the "Canaanites" among us, that's terribly exciting news. No, it isn't good news that life (beginning with the unborn) is so cheap, that neighbor-love is so weak, that greed and sexual immorality are championed as virtues instead of vices. But for those who believe that the greatest crisis in the world concerns the issues of everlasting importance, they are free in a sense to say in the face of Christendom's demise, "Fine. We'll
cope. We've done this before. Now Christianity will be strange and can have its own voice back at last—and not be exploited as a prop to hold up a tower of national interests." So we can either run off to Bethlehem and start a monastery, as Jerome ended up doing, or we can stay in the earthly city while indwelling the City of God by the Spirit of Christ, citizens of two distinct empires. |
Horton says the death of "Christendom" -- the death of unborn children, the death of neighborly love, the death of purity and chastity -- is good news. Yeah, I know, he said it isn't good news. But isn't he saying that it's better that the City of Man be ruled by a pagan or atheist Nero than by a Christian Justinian, or -- horrors! -- a Rushdoony?
Because Horton is not saying that it's better that our life on earth not be ruled by any archist at all. He defends the necessity of archists. He opposes the Vine & Fig Tree idea of a Christianized society where all swords have been beaten into plowshares and all emperors have resigned and gotten real jobs. He wants an emperor, just not a Christian one who attempts to rule by Biblical Law. Horton thinks it's wrong for civil government to obey Christ.
No Reconstructionist I know wants Christians or God's Law to "be exploited as a prop to hold up a tower of national interests."
|
| Abraham and his heirs of promise have always "confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland." |
But in Christ, we no longer seek that homeland; we have arrived. All the power of the City of Man has been transferred to Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). The kingdoms of this world have already become the kingdoms of our Lord (Revelation 11:15). |
| It is not a geo-political homeland here on earth that is in view, not even Jerusalem. "But, as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them" (Heb. 11:14-16). |
This City has already come down from heaven. It is our job to put this truth into action. |
| Ironically, this makes us more effective both as witnesses on behalf of the City of God and as citizens of our nations. First, we are no longer perceived as those who want to play the power game with our religious commitments, since the heavenly kingdom progresses by God's grace alone through the means of grace. Second, our participation in this world is affirmed without having to buy into a triumphalism about "capturing the culture for Christ" that alienates our pagan neighbors even as it corrupts the distinctiveness of the Gospel (see Eberly's article, page 14.). While individual
Christians will, as citizens of the heavenly kingdom, participate in the public sphere and defend particular views alongside other citizens who may not be Christians at all, the Church must never be identified with a political movement. When it does, it loses its credibility before the watching world just as it loses its confidence in the power of the Gospel to complete the mission for which the Church was created. |
Christians are prohibited from "playing the power game."
Why is Horton so worried about how we are "perceived" by homosexuals, and abortionists? Why is he so worried that we might "alienate" educators who give condoms to children, and bureaucrats who confiscate the family farm?
In Nazi Germany, what was the danger of "the Church" (whatever that is) being identified with an anti-socialist, pro-Christian political movement? Wasn't the only legal alternative for the Church to be identified with the Nazi political movement? ("Heil, Hitler" = "Hitler saves!") Didn't Rome put Christians to death because they were identified with a "rival political movement" which expressed itself in a defiant unwillingness to put a pinch of incense on the altar to Caesar?
|
| No bio information available for this author. |
|
| Issue: "Why Two Kingdoms?: Dual Citizenship On the Eve of the Election" Sept./Oct. Vol. 9 No. 5 2000 Pages 22-23 |
|
| You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. We do not allow reposting an article in its entirety on the Internet. We request that you link to this article from your website. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation (webmaster@modernreformation.org). |
|
| Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally appeared in the [insert current issue date] edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved. |
|
This article is a permenantly [sic] featured article, it will be available indefinitely.
donate | contact us | customer service | terms of use | privacy policy | submissions |
|
Copyright © 2009 White Horse Inn
|
|