Michael S. Horton does not like the "Christian Reconstructionists." This article is an attempt to explain why. When you finish reading this article, you still won't understand why Horton is not a Reconstructionist. Hopefully you will have a better idea of why and how we should apply Biblical Law in every area of life, like the Reconstructionists advocate.
Horton seems to be saying there's two :kingdoms." One -- the church -- is where Biblical Law can be applied, but only where Biblical Law is concerned with churchly things, not where it's concerned with civic, social, commercial, or other non-churchly things. That's not for the church. The other kingdom is everything outside the church, but Biblical Law concerning these things must not be applied in these areas. These areas are to be governed by something called "natural law." Whatever that is.
But Horton never comes right out and explains what the "two kingdoms" are, so disregard everything in the paragraph above. Just keep asking yourself, "What are Horton's 'two kingdoms?'"
Two eschatologies, or views of history and creation's destiny, clashed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
Are these the "Two Kingdoms?"
One was rooted in the triumphalism that marked Anglo-American Protestantism since the Spanish Armada's defeat in 1588 and produced the courageous confidence of the New England Puritans. The other was rooted in the disillusionment with society's gradual improvement that so characterized nineteenth-century Evangelicalism. Postmillennialism and premillennialism (see definitions on page 46) are the terms most commonly used now to delineate those two distinct approaches.
Horton admits that society improved in the 19th century. Improvement began earlier. It was maintained by Christian ethics, which were taught in every school. Why premills were "disillusioned" by social improvement is not explained. (More likely, evangelicals were not disillusioned with "society's" gradual improvement, but with secularism's gradual improvement, leading to great displays of secularism like World War I.)
In the 20th century, America's "Experiment in Liberty" was replaced with an experiment in Secular Government Central Planning. Christian morality was removed from public schools. Improvement ended. Social decline set in, as it always does under paganism and atheism.
Millennialism, whatever the prefix, concerns the triumph of "Christendom" from the conversion of Constantine the Great in 313 to the Great War (World War I).
"Christendom" means that the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker all conduct their businesses in accord with Christian ethics. So also do princes, if any, and priests, if any. (Christendom can exist without priests or princes, because the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker are "priests and kings" under Christ the True King. Any butcher who does not see himself as a priestly and kingly businessman under the rule of Christ is an incipient butcher of men, and
a genocidal warlord. He is an "archist.")
In the fifth century, St. Augustine sharply distinguished the "two cities," with their own special origin, purpose, destiny, message, and methods.
"The City of Man," for Augustine, was demonic. The City of God, obviously, was not. The kingdom of man is in rebellion against the Kingdom of God. These are "the Two Kingdoms," but Horton will never define the kingdom of man as being in rebellion against the Kingdom of God. He grants legitimate autonomy to the kingdom of man,
And yet, Augustine reluctantly conceded to the use of the secular sword in suppressing the Donatists, a schismatic group similar to the radical Anabaptists known to the reformers. Like Augustine, both Luther and Calvin defended in theory a two kingdoms approach that they did not always follow in practice. While Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were "amillennial" in their eschatology (i.e., non-millenarian), they were still under the sway of the Christendom model.
Horton speaks of only one "Christendom" model, in which the State uses the sword against unlicensed religions. But in our model above, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker do not do anything like this, for they are Christians, not archists, and they live in Christendom, not Caesardom.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire often played out its identity as the fulfillment of the Old Testament theocracy, the true Israel of God.
The emperor was a blend of King David (hence, the Holy part of the name) and Caesar (hence, the Roman part).
The Holy Roman Empire was not holy. If Constantine did not behave in a truly Christ-like manner, this is not an argument against all people -- even emperors -- being required to behave in a Christ-like manner. Though we haven't seen this spelled out yet in the article at left, the author of that article believes that anyone claiming to be Ceasar is not required to obey Christ in the Bible.
Anyone claiming to be "the emperor" in a way the butcher, the baker, and candlestick maker are not (i.e., priests and kings under Christ), is in rebellion against Christ.
It was an error to claim that anyone baptized by the emperor was therefore (ipso facto) a Christian. It was not an error to believe that the emperor must follow God's Law. Everyone must follow God's Law. It was an error to believe the emperor qua emperor could. Christianity cannot be promoted by someone in rebellion against the teachings of Christ, i.e., by someone who claims the moral right to be an archist.
The whole empire and, in fact, all Christian states, composed the corpus Christianum, the body of Christ. And this "one kingdom" of God would grow and spread its unified cult and culture, its worship and its civilization, to the ends of the earth.
A "Christian state" is a contradiction in terms.
This is the myth behind the crusades, the Inquisition, and such American institutions as slavery and the doctrine of manifest destiny, which gave narrative justification for the slaughter of Native Americans.
Needless to say, the confusion of the two kingdoms has yielded the lion's share of blame for the atrocities committed in the name of God and his Messiah.
"This is the myth...." WHAT is the myth?
Is "the myth" the idea that Constantine was required to obey Christ in the Bible? That's "the myth?" Or is it a myth that anyone has a moral right to be an "archist?"
No, Horton says "the myth" behind genocidal atrocities is "the confusion of the two kingdoms." To be sure, confusing Caesar and Christ creates big problems. When Caesar claims to be divine, and claims to be exempt from obeying Christ in the Scriptures, that's a big problem. But this is not what Horton is complaining about.
Horton is complaining about the idea advanced by "Christian Reconstructionists" that Caesar is obligated to obey Christ in the Scriptures.
In the nineteenth century, most Protestants were optimistic. Temperance societies emerged as one of many movements organized around the vision of a Christianized America. In the last quarter of that century, fellow evangelicals Josiah Strong and D. L. Moody would represent the growing cleavage between the triumphalistic postmillennialists and the pessimistic premillennialists.
Which is better, a "Christianized America," or a "Satanized America?" Or a "secular America?" (The Soviet Union was secular.)
"Triumphalistic postmillennialism" contends that the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdoms of our Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 11:15). Instead of claiming divinity, Caesar will repent and obey Christ. "Pessimistic premillennialists" believe Satan will triumph over Christ.
"The kingdoms of this world will not have become the kingdoms of our Lord," Strong opined, "until the money power has been Christianized."(1)
The kingdoms of this world will not have become the kingdoms of our Lord until the mafia has been Christianized. But will there still be something recognizable as "a mafia" -- or "a money power" -- after their members repent and obey Christ speaking in the Scriptures?
Long before the conservative-liberal polarizations, American Evangelicalism had championed the so-called social gospel, as one notices in the following comment from liberal preacher Horace Bushnell:
Talent has been Christianized already on a large scale. The political power of states and kingdoms has been long assumed to be, and now at last really is, as far as it becomes their accepted office to maintain personal security and liberty. Architecture, arts, constitutions, schools, and learning have been largely Christianized. But the money power, which is one of the most operative and grandest of all, is only beginning to be; though with promising tokens of a finally complete reduction to Christ and the uses of His Kingdom.... That day, when it comes, is the morning, so to speak, of the new creation. Is it not time for that day to dawn?(2)
But evangelist D. L. Moody marched to the beat of a different drum. Although initially quite representative of Charles Finney's social activism, Moody became increasingly pessimistic about the extent to which earthly empires could become the kingdom of God. "I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel," he would later write. "God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, 'Moody, save all you can.'" (3) Whereas revival was usually regarded as an instrument of Christianizing society through evangelism and social action, Moody saw it as a means of converting individuals.
Notice that "save all you can" does not mean "convert mutineers and shipwreckers into skilled sailors." It means get the out of this world. God's command to "exercise dominion" has been repealed.
The American version of the Holy Roman Empire
regarded the proliferation of Protestant hospitals, colleges, and men's and women's societies, as signs of God's approval and, indeed, of the advancement of the kingdom of God.
Name one American Protestant who said, "I am building the Holy Roman Empire," or in any way identified himself with "the Holy Roman Empire."
If these institutions were truly Christian, truly Biblical, and not merely baptized secular institutions, Christian in name only, would they have been wrong to see this as the advancement of the Kingdom of God? Why? Can you prove your answer from Scripture?
As historian George Marsden has documented in various places, both the Christian Right and the Christian Left derive from this late nineteenth-century Evangelicalism.(4) It is this quite recent train of thought (or, more precisely, activism), rather than the profound reflection of Augustine and the reformers that guides contemporary evangelical activism.
Wait a minute. In the previous paragraph, these social activists were self-consciously carrying on the millennia-old vision of "the Holy Roman Empire." Now it's a "quite recent" innovation. Which is it?
Quote the passage in which "the profound reflection of Augustine" can be found, in which he denounces the building of Christian hospitals and colleges. Quote similar passages in the Reformers.
Ironically, even staunch premillennialists like Jerry Falwell sound similar to the postmillennialists of yesteryear. It's one thing to inconsistently act out a two kingdoms position and quite another to act out a Christendom model because one has confused a particular culture with the kingdom of God.
It is impossible to define an "inconsistent acting out" of the "two kingdoms" position, if we have never clearly stated the "two kingdoms position" in the first place.
How is it that an attempt to Christianize a secular culture is guilty of "confusing" a "particular" culture with the Kingdom of God?
We know that Augustine taught the two kingdoms approach.
Do we know this?
What the heck is "the two kingdoms approach?"
This view made it possible for profound Christian involvement and influence in secular society, while at the same time never giving in to the naïve assumption that any human culture or nation is—or can become—truly righteous or good.
For only at the end of the age, when Christ returns, is the wheat separated from the chaff,
and until that time, we work on two different agendas: One for the kingdom of Christ (salvation), and another for the kingdom of man (social improvement), and both for the glory of God.
The word "different" is a word that can only be used by logically-thinking people. How is the agenda of the Kingdom of Christ "different" from an agenda of "social improvement." Is the agenda of the Kingdom of Christ "social collapse" or "social nihilism?"
Did Augustine really say that the "kingdom of man" is really and fruitfully dedicated to "social improvement," in contrast to the City of God?
Earthly Kingdoms and the Heavenly City
Accordingly, the earthly kingdoms establish diverse laws and customs that will engender earthly peace—no small accomplishment for humanity after the fall. But the heavenly city is always different in its ambitions, seeking heavenly peace and calling people out of the nations into the kingdom of God.
There is an amazing amount of ambiguity and unpacked presuppositions in this paragraph. This should be typical of a demagogue, not a seminary professor.
Prof. Horton is drawing a distinction between "the earthly kingdoms" -- which he sometimes calls "Christendom" -- and the Kingdom of God. We have seen that members of "Christendom" -- the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker -- create peace by working in a Christlike manner and serving consumers. "Laws and customs" in this case would mean 30-day invoicing and 9-5 office hours. This peaceful and harmonious society is more than just "no small accomplishment for humanity after the fall." It is a result of the Great Commission, "making disciples of all nations." Converting them from Greco-Roman pagans and atheistic communists to Christian capitalists.
What does it mean to "call people out of the nations into the kingdom of God?" Call them out of Christendom? Change them from bakers to monks? Or change them from Christian bakers to atheistic bakers?
Or (and this is probably the most important question) by "earthly kingdoms" does Prof. Horton mean empires. Does he mean "socialist regimes," "communist dictatorship," and/or "the Obama Administration?" By "diverse laws and customs," does Prof. Horton mean bureaucratic regulations enforced by armed marshals rather than the voluntarily agreed upon practices of capitalists in a Free Market?
Does Prof. Horton believe that governments "engender earthly peace" rather than Christians acting as bakers and candlestick makers?
We believe Prof. Horton's faith in Caesar is unBiblical and historically unjustifed.
This does not mean that they then are no longer citizens of the earthly city, but that they do not derive their ultimate comfort, satisfaction, or hope from it.
Who is arguing that Christian hospitals should be anyone's "ultimate comfort, satisfaction, or hope?" This is an unChristlike way of arguing.
Secular society is a gift of God before and after the fall and it must be cultivated by Christians as well as their nonbelieving neighbors. In fact, "God can never be believed to have left the kingdoms of men, their dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of His providence."(5)
Secular society is a gift from God, but "Christendom" -- a Christlike society -- is not??? What does this mean? What is this professor saying?? Why must Christians cultivate a secularsociety?
But the earthly city is always Babylon—it is never converted, as are its inhabitants, into the dwelling place of God. The kingdom of God advances through the proclamation of the Gospel, not through force: "This city is therefore now in building; stones are cut down from the hills by the hands of those who preach truth, they are squared that they may enter into an everlasting structure." (6)
Needed: a word-study on where God dwells, starting with
Leviticus 26:12
I will walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.
Jeremiah 32:38 They shall be My people, and I will be their God;
Ezekiel 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Zechariah 2:11
“Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”
and ending with
Revelation 21:3
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
Does God not dwell with butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers?
Luther appropriated Augustine's New Testament insights, although he reacted against church domination over the secular sphere by making the church subject to the state. (In fairness, the same approach was taken by Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, and even to some extent Calvin.) "Secular government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and to external things and relations on earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself alone," Luther said. The two kingdoms approach represents the Lutheran consensus.
I don't know any Christian Reconstructionist who does not agree with Luther's claim that that State has no jurisdiction over the soul.
But what about Calvin and Calvinism? Theologian H. Richard Niebuhr's heavy typecasting in Christ and Culture distinguishes Calvinism as a "Christ Transforming Culture" model. There have been reasons to argue that case, I suppose. In the Dutch Calvinism of theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper, for instance, there is a heavy emphasis on recognizing the authority of God and of his Christ over all spheres of life and not just religion. While Presbyterianism in the northern United States tended to confuse the two cities, dominated as it came to be by postmillennial optimism, southern Presbyterianism sharply
distinguished the two kingdoms—often perhaps in the interest of protecting the institution of slavery by separating faith from practice.
So people who are optimistic postmillennialists rather than pessimistic premillennialists, "confuse" the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Caesar, Stalin or Obama? How is this possible? Does Prof. Horton really believe this? What does Prof. Horton really mean?
But when it comes to the confessional standards of Reformed and Presbyterian bodies, as well as their most representative dogmatics or systematic theologies, one easily discerns a consensus around the biblical and Augustinian two kingdoms doctrine. To demonstrate this conclusion, let's turn briefly to Calvin.
Calvin Appreciates God's Fallen World
"Hooray, it's fallen!"
Trained in some of the most distinguished circles of French humanism, Calvin was familiar with a wide range of literature and other subjects. Far from repudiating this heritage, he continued to appreciate its strengths even as he came to recognize more clearly the weaknesses in secular thought. "Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers," he pleaded, "let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God's excellent gifts." He continues:
Calvin's study of Greek humanists contaminated his study of the Bible. Many of America's Founding Fathers made the same mistakes, but also recognized that what was good about Rome was stolen from the Bible and Christianity. Everybody agrees that no atheist is wrong 100% of the time. Even the Amish will admit that atheists really know how to build fast cars and fancy televisions. But only in Christian nations. Atheists in communist nations don't seem to be able to build cars as fast as those in capitalist nations. Why does Prof. Horton say Calvin
"appreciates" the "fallen" world rather than a world redeemed by Christ?
What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone on the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature?... Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen?... Those men whom Scripture calls "natural men" were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of earthly things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (7)
"Great equity?" Rome?
In ancient Greece and Rome, individual human life had no particular value in and of itself. The Spartans left weak children to die on the hillside. Infanticide was common, as it is common even today in many parts of the world. Fathers who wanted sons had few qualms about drowning their newborn daughters. Human beings were routinely bludgeoned to death or mauled by wild animals in the Roman gladiatorial arena. Many of the great classical thinkers saw nothing wrong with these practices. Christianity, on the other hand, contributed to their demise by fostering moral outrage at the mistreatment of innocent human life.Is Rome the source of
American Ideals?
Half the population of Athens were slaves. Did the philosopher-kings who ruled over these "mundanes" come up with valid mathematical formulas, as well as new varieties of homosexuality? Yes. And your point is . . . .? Do opponents of the "two kingdoms" view fail to understand the Pythagorean Theorem?
Opposing what Calvin called the contrived empire known as Christendom was not popular in the sixteenth century, with Roman Catholics or Protestants. And Calvin was still not as clear about how this worked out in practice as we might have hoped. Nevertheless, he insists, we must recognize that we are "under a twofold government,... so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature." Just as the body and soul are distinct without being necessarily opposed, "Christ's spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct." But he continues:
Every Anabaptist agrees that "Christ's spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct." But Prof. Horton does not agree with the Anabaptists. So what is Horton saying? It appears that he favors a fallen, unredeemed, unsanctified, non-Christian, atheistic government. It appears that he opposes any attempt to redeem it, sanctify it, mortify its sins, and Christianize it. Could this be because he realizes that doing so would eliminate it?
Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men. That is what, indeed, certain fanatics who delight in unbridled license shout and boast.... But as we have just now pointed out that this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and inward Kingdom of Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance. (8)
Calvin accused all "Anabaptists" of being libertines, even though the majority were exceptionally pure and Christlike in their morality. This was in fact precisely because they undermined his appeal to the governments of his day, with their radical critique of archism.
So here the Genevan reformer stood, between the Christ of culture (Rome) and the Christ against culture (Anabaptists).
The Anabaptists were not against "culture" where "culture" is defined as the activity of butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers acting peacefully in a Free Market. They were against "culture" where "culture" is defined as "the State and its influence."
Because of God's goodness in creation and providence, the secular kingdom could not be renounced without incurring divine displeasure, but because of sin and rebellion against God the cities of this world would never be reconciled to God apart from his final judgment at the end of history.
Why is does someone who tries to Christianize a secular culture incur God's "divine displeasure?" God likes Jackson Pollack but not the Dutch Masters?
Anabaptist zeal to escape the world meets with Calvin's rebuke at every turn. The Schleitheim Confession (1527) of the Anabaptists argued the following dualism that would also heavily mark American fundamentalism:
Anabaptists did not attempt to escape farming, barn-raising, bread-baking, bar-b-ques, and candlestick-making. One can be an Anabaptist and not attempt to escape quantum mechanics and nanotechnology.
We are agreed on separation: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them [the wicked] and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do his will, are a great abomination to God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. (9)
It is not the case that all Anabaptists refused to engage in commercial activity with unbelievers or statist "christians." Sell them your crops, buy their hammers and nails. The use of tools by Anabaptists indicates that they are not all or totally opposed to technology. Primitivism is only one thread of the Anabaptist coat.
For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.
To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters.
He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them.
From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and
fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.
Therefore there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian, devilish weapons of force - such as sword, armor and the like, and all their use (either) for friends or against one's enemies - by virtue of the Word of Christ. Resist not (him that is) evil.
The Obama Administration takes credit for all the advancements in our economy. The Anabaptists denies them the credit. The Anabaptist will not serve in the Obama Administration.
Hence, most Anabaptists withdrew entirely from civil society to form their own communities. Ironically, these communities became a new confusion of kingdoms: the secular and spiritual government were regarded as one and the same, just as they had been in Christendom. While some Anabaptists withdrew, others sought to overthrow existing governments and institute the kingdom of God by force, as in Thomas Muntzer's ill-fated peasant revolution.
Prof. Horton's forefathers executed Anabaptists for re-baptizing themselves, and now Prof. Horton criticizes Anabaptists for leaving town.
Revolutionary "anabaptists" were opposed by peaceful Anabaptists, and were given distorted attention by the Reformers, who were attempting to curry favor with statist magistrates.
The problem with the Anabaptists on this point, Calvin argued, was that they would not distinguish between creation and fall or between the two kingdoms instituted by God.
What is "this point": avoiding being persecuted by the Reformers, or the fringe nut-cases like Muntzer?
We all agree that the revolutionaries were wrong. (Name one person who wrote or subscribed to the Schleitheim Confession who considered Muntzer a like-minded brother in Christ.)
So let's talk about a close-knit Christian community that questions TV and self-consciously seeks to follow Christ. Let's see . . . they fail to "distinguish between creation and fall." Huh? They fail to "distinguish . . . between the two kingdoms" -- the Kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. The City of God and the city of rebellious man. Huh?
Or could it be that there are two other kingdoms that Prof. Horton has in mind, and yet here we are, three-quarters of the way through an article entitled "Defining the Two Kingdoms," and we stillhaven't gotten a clear, Biblical definition of these two kingdoms?!?
In this way, justification before God was confused with moral, social, and political righteousness, undermining both civility between Christian and non-Christian as well as the Gospel.
Name one Anabaptist who believed he was justified before God by avoiding sin and worldliness rather than by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Even the Reformed Encyclopedia of Christianity notes this concerning the doctrine of the “Anabaptists,”
As far as the basic doctrines of Protestantism were concerned, the Anabaptists stood in accord with the Reformers. Justification by faith, the authority of the Scriptures, and the priesthood of all believers were fully accepted, though often not theologically developed, for the Anabaptists placed more stress on existential Christianity than on theological and philosophical systems. This is hardly surprising in view of the constant persecution. Like the Reformers, the Anabaptists accepted the doctrine of the Fall, admitting man’s dependence upon divine grace and rejecting all thought of “works righteousness.” While they acknowledged that salvation was solely the work of God, they were equally insistent that discipleship, or a close
adherence to those principles enunciated and practiced by Christ, must ever be a corollary of faith.
So, Calvin writes, "How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law! For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain."(10) After all, Calvin says, "It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved on the minds of men."(11)
Unbelievers can rule justly and prudently, as Paul indicates, even under the more pagan circumstances of his day (Rom. 13:1-7).
The citation of Romans 13 at the end of this paragraph indicates that the real "kingdom" being defended by Prof. Horton is the secular State. If Calvin believed that the world was a better place because of emperors and bureaucrats, Calvin was wrong. He was a product of his times. The world would be a better place if we would beat our swords into plowshares and our bureaucrats into bakers. The only sentence in that paragraph that makes sense is the last one: Horton wants unbelieving government.
Calvin's Distinctiveness from Luther on the Practice of Two Kingdoms
Where Calvin differed not only from Luther but also from his Reformed elders and colleagues, was chiefly in the practice of two kingdoms theory. For one thing, Calvin had been expelled from Geneva precisely because he and the other ministers had insisted on the liberty of the church in the spiritual affairs of the people. Zurich's city council had ruled the church, as had Strasbourg's, Bern's, and Basel's-while Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and other reformer-pastors of those cities fully concurred. Why were Calvin and Farel so disagreeable to this order? Only after pleading earnestly and successfully for Calvin's return did the city council of Geneva finally surrender at least some of its jurisdiction to
the consistory (the pastors of the several Genevan churches with their elders). Even when Michael Servetus, the outspoken anti-trinitarian, was burned at the stake in Geneva, Calvin's only role was that of witness. In fact, Calvin had pleaded with the city council for a less painful form of execution, but the support of even "gentle Phillip" Melanchthon was on the side of the traditional execution for heretics. As in many other controversies (such as weekly communion), Calvin lost to the conservatism of the city council.
The Anabaptists led the movement for "liberty of the church in the spiritual affairs of the people." It was the Anabaptists in Zurich who wanted to stop celebrating the Mass and observe the Lord's Table Biblically, whereas Zwingli insisted the change must wait for approval from the Civil Magistrate.
Although Luther criticized indulgences, he was still celebrating the Roman Catholic Mass when the first Anabaptist congregation met in the home of Felix Manz, January 21, 1525. It's one thing to talk about reform. It's another thing to reform. The Anabaptists were the first reformers. Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin hated these home-churchers, and encouraged the emperors of their day to lash out at them with the sword.
Notice how Horton calls Servetus' executioners "conservatives."
On the right of resistance to tyrannical rulers, Calvin shared the conservatism of the other reformers, especially at a time when so many princes suspected all Protestants of the radicalism of Thomas Muntzer and the radical Anabaptists. Nevertheless, Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza, along with a number of other Reformed theologians especially in Germany and France, began developing what became the modern "right of resistance" to tyrants. For Luther, the prince is always to be obeyed, at least in the sphere of earthly things. Calvin's view was almost identical to that but with the door sufficiently cracked (e.g., Institutes 4.20) to allow for the possibility
that tyrants could be opposed on legal grounds by lesser nobility—but never by the masses. One does begin to discern in Reformed attitudes a greater interaction between the two kingdoms. Although both are clearly distinguished, there is perhaps a stronger emphasis in Reformed theology upon the continuity of creation and redemption. The image of God is defaced, but not lost, in sinful humanity. While cultural activity can never be redemptive, the redeemed will view creation and cultural activity with new spectacles. The enormous interest in cultural pursuits that the Reformed tradition produced was never seen as entirely separate from heavenly citizenship, but a constructive
outworking of it.
Princes suspected the Anabaptists because they believed the slanderous reports of the "magisterial reformers." The Anabaptists, of course, were pacifists and opponents of violent revolution against the state. Calvinists have been the ones to champion armed resistance.
What is "a greater interaction between the two kingdoms?"
"The continuity of creation and redemption" is some kind of "two kingdom" buzz-phrase. It only has meaning for "two kingdom" "insiders." It can't possibly mean that the State can be redeemed: bought with a price from the Satanic slave-traders and made a servant of Christ, discipled by Christians, subject to His Word.
To be sure, there is a tension in the Reformed position to see all of life under the reign of God and yet to affirm "we do not yet see all things subjected to Christ." Some err on the side of triumphalism (an over-realized eschatology emphasizing the "already"), while others err on the side of pessimism (an under-realized eschatology emphasizing the "not yet"). But if Calvinists are not expected to endure tyranny, they are also not given liberty to take justice into their own hands or to exercise the judgment reserved for the King of kings on the last day. Nor are they to seek to impose their distinctively Christian convictions on society through the kingdom
of power, as both Rome and the radical Anabaptists tried to do, but are to pursue their dual citizenship according to the distinct policies of each kingdom.
Why is it wrong to seek to impose distinctively Christian convictions on society through [political] power? Why is it wrong for Christians to go into a cannibalistic society and make cannibalism illegal? Why was it wrong for British Christians to go into India and abolish the thuggism of Kali worship? If it's wrong for Christians to use political power, it is wrong for every human being to use political power.
At the end of the day, at stake in distinguishing the two kingdoms is the distinction between law and Gospel. Those who confuse civil righteousness with righteousness before God will be likely to confuse moral reform in society with the kingdom of God. And yet, here again there is a subtle difference between the Lutheran and Reformed approaches. While the Reformed firmly insist on the distinction and, in fact, the opposition of law and Gospel with respect to the question of our acceptance before God, they do not believe that the law only accuses everyone at all times. There is a third use of the law, which Lutherans also accept in
principle. According to this use, the law guides believers who can never again fall under its threats and condemnation. Law and Gospel are not in opposition unless we seek to find satisfaction before God. But they are always distinguished at every point. The law can guide us in godly living, but it can never—even after we're justified—give us any life.
Law and Gospel | John M. Frame | Chalcedon
Who -- who? -- confuses political action resulting in the banning of the gassing of Jews with "righteousness before God" (a phrase which appears to refer to individual calling, justification, and glorification [Romans 8:30])?
Who among those who affirm that God's Law can (and must) guide us in Godly living also affirms that the law can justify? Who?
Or is this just an example of "straw man" argumentation?
Just as we cannot derive any life from the law, we cannot derive any confidence in our cultural triumphs in so many fields.
What does this sentence mean? Why was it written? What is Horton really trying to say?
As with law and Gospel, our earthly and heavenly citizenship are not opposed unless we are seeking a way of salvation for a nation.
The overwhelming majority of occurrences of the Hebrew word for "salvation" in the Bible talks about a way of salvation for a nation. "Salvation" in the Bible is primarily political. Nobody is guilty in our day of confusing political salvation with individual salvation because most people are abysmally ignorant of the entire concept of political salvation, even as they vote for Barack Obama to bring us everything the Bible says "salvation" represents.
But once we recognize that there is no everlasting rest from violence, oppression, injustice, and immorality through our own political or cultural works, we are free to pursue their amelioration with vigorous gratitude to God for his saving grace in Jesus Christ.
Who is it that does not recognize that our political efforts will not bring "everlasting rest from violence?" WHO?? Who is it (among those who give even the slightest thought to political action) that does not know that the price of liberty is "eternal vigilance?"
Furthermore, we pursue this cultural task looking back to the creation which God blessed and looking forward to this same creation that will be restored when the kingdoms of this world will finally be made the kingdom of our God and of his Christ forever, world without end. Amen.
And this goal is accomplished by nobody fulfilling the Great Commission?
1 [ Back ] Josiah Strong, "Our Country," in William G. McLoughlin, ed., The American Evangelicals, 1800-1900: An Anthology (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976), p. 196. 2 [ Back ] Quoted by Josiah Strong, op.cit. 3 [ Back ] Cited in Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 38. 4 [ Back ] George M. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience: A Case Study of Thought and Theology in Nineteenth-Centry America (New Haven: Yale, 1970); and George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), especially chapter 3. 5 [ Back ] Ibid., 222. 6 [ Back ] Ibid., 208. 7 [ Back ] Institutes, 2.2.15. 8 [ Back ] Ibid., 4.20.1-2. 9 [ Back ] Mark Noll, ed., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing, 1997). 10 [ Back ] Institutes, 4.20.8,14. 11 [ Back ] Ibid.
Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of The White Horse Inn national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of several books, including Power Religion, A Better Way, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Baker, 2006), and Too Good to be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype (Zondervan, 2006).
Issue: "Why Two Kingdoms?: Dual Citizenship On the Eve of the Election" Sept./Oct. Vol. 9 No. 5 2000 Pages 21-25, 28
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 (mailto:webmaster@modernreformation.org?subject=MR%20Article%20Permission).
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 temporarily featured article for non-subscribers, and will expire on Nov. 22, 2009.
Related
Articles 
Rate This Article