The Two Kingdoms    (February 28, 2010)

SERMON TEXT:  Romans 13:1-7 ("Submit to the governing authorities").  We will also celebrate the baptism of Lucy Josephine Waters and enjoy hymn accompaniment by the Grace Orchestra.

SUNDAY SCHOOL & ADULT CLASSES:  Winter Session continues through March 14th

SUGGESTED FAMILY WORSHIP TEXT:  Jeremiah 29

HYMNS:      ~ Praise to the Lord, the Almighty (Trinity 53)
                      ~ All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name! (Trinity 297; tune:  Diadem)

SONGS:      ~ O Love that Will Not Let Me Go
                     ~ And Can it Be (indelible grace version)
                     ~ surprises!

DEVOTIONAL:    The Two Kingdoms

NOTE:   Be well warned dear reader:  this is a much longer devotional than most.  You might want to take a deep breath or get a cup of tea, or even print it out before digesting.  And then take some Tums.

Last week’s sermon elicited a number of very good questions, some of which I will attempt to address as we continue into Romans 13.  Admittedly, the subject of Christ and Culture, or Church and State is a complicated one.   And there were times when I probably could have been clearer.   I hope the basic point, however, was plain:  that the Church has an ethic which is different than the ethic of this world, and that as Christians, we are citizens of two realms: the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man.  We are to be in this world, while yet not of it (John 17:15-16).  And that human governments are therefore authorized by God to bear the sword to enforce justice in this world; but that bearing of the sword has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel.  Christians then, must pay taxes and obey civil authorities, and may even participate in those governments, including bearing the sword.  But when they do so, they do so as earthly citizens, and never in the name of Christ.  That we are then dual citizens of “Two Kingdoms.”

However, I realize that this raises many sticky questions, and that there are gray areas; times when it may be best to disobey those same civil authorities.   And Christians often disagree as to when those times are or not.  It may well be then that Paul follows up this section with a strong treatise on Christian freedom, in which he adjures us not to judge one another as each follow our own consciences in such things.  Likewise, as I mentioned, the Reformed tradition has a strong strain of cooperation between Church and State at times, such as in Calvin’s Geneva, or Puritan New England, or more recently, Holland under Abraham Kuyper.   There are those who would stress that “every square inch” of this world belongs to Christ and nothing falls out of his Lordship.  And there are those who stress the leavening aspect the Gospel should have on culture such that it becomes a major theme of their ministry.  Indeed, this emphasis can be found all over the PCA.  And so we must discuss these things openly and forebear with one another where we disagree.

So what do I mean when I say that we are members of Two Kingdoms, and what Biblical basis is there for that?    Let me answer that in two ways.  First, by explaining six things we do not mean by a Two Kingdom theology.  Second, by giving nine very brief Biblical explanations of how we do see a clear Two Kingdom in the New Testament for this era of redemptive history.

SIX THINGS THE TWO KINGDOM MODEL DOES NOT TEACH

First, six things the Two Kingdom approach does not teach:

1) The Two Kingdom approach does not teach that secular jobs are meaningless or evil.  Just the opposite.   They are good simply because they serve God with our gifts; we have no need to “baptize” them with Christian stickers or causes in order to make them worthwhile.

2) The Two Kingdom approach does not teach that we are to leave our faith at the church door.  We are to do our secular jobs and live every moment of every day as Christians.  We are to take every thought captive for Christ (II Cor 10:5).   How this works out is often a matter of wisdom and Christian freedom.  Nor do we see our secular work as necessarily building the Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Church.   We do it simply because it honors God and helps people.

3) The Two Kingdom approach does not mean that we are to be silent in the face of injustice.   As individual Christians we are to stand for truth and justice at home, work and society.  The Church also is to speak to the culture and even the civil authorities about matters of justice.   At the same time, we recognize that God gives to us particular flocks and particular fields of influence.  We do not need to rush to the sound of the guns of every cultural battle the media foists upon us.

4) The Two Kingdom approach does not mean we cannot influence government as Christians.   The problem is when we take official stances as the Church regarding specific policies of the civil government.  So we can say, “Abortion should be outlawed,” but the Church should not support a particular way to do it.   Even more so when it comes to issues of poverty relief, monetary policy and taxation, the Church should be very careful not to align itself with any particular policy, since it necessarily involves the use of force to enforce.

5) The Two Kingdom approach does not censure Christians or pastors who feel a call to address particular social ills or matters of justice.  It is just careful to protect the Christian freedom of others who sense a call to focus elsewhere, or to concentrate their efforts on the building and health of the Church, gathering and perfecting the saints, as our Confession puts it.

6) The Two Kingdom approach does not say that the Gospel should not have a leavening and positive influence in society.  In fact, we expect it will!  But it comes about as a fruit of Christians growing in grace, not as a program of the Church.  Otherwise, grace and power become intermixed with devastating consequences as church history has shown.

NINE GROUNDS FOR A TWO KINGDOM MODEL

So those are some of things we not mean.   Here then are nine brief Biblical and theological grounds for supporting a Two Kingdom approach to the Christian life.

1) Jesus said as much.  He said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).   He told us to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s” (Mark 12:17).   He prayed that God would not take His disciples out of the world, but help them to be not of the world (John 17:15-16).

2) Christians are an exile people.  Peter tells us that we are “aliens and strangers in this world,” (I Peter 2:11) and to “set our hope fully on the grace to be given us when Christ Jesus is revealed” (I Peter 1:13).  Hebrews tells us that “here we have no enduring city, but are looking for the city that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14).  This fits in nicely with the exile theme of Israel in the dessert on the way to the promised land, and to Israel as exiles in Babylon (“Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile,” (Jeremiah 29:7).

3) Israel as a One Kingdom theocracy passed away with the coming of Christ.  This is clear from Galatians, and Acts 15, and many other places.  Therefore, there is no longer any “holy land,”in which theocratic punishments are to be meted out upon the ungodly.  The closest thing to that in our era are the censures of church discipline, since we are now Israel (cf. I Peter 2:9).

4) Paul makes it plain that the Church’s jurisdiction is its own members, not those in the world when he writes “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?  Are you not to judge those inside.  God will judge those outside.  ‘Expel the immoral man from among you,’” (I Corinthians 5:12-13).  In other words, those outside the Church do owe God an accounting, but the Church is only to concern itself – formally anyway – with those who profess Christ.  Likewise, it follows that  individual congregations should primarily concern themselves with their own members.

5) We see no examples in Acts or any of the Epistles of the Church actively engaging in social reform.  Yes, we see incredible examples of the Church taking care of the poor given to them (Acts 2:42ff; 4:32ff; 6:1-7; Galatians 2:10; James 1:27).  We also see the apostles standing up to government at times when they are unjustly treated (Acts 4:19-20; Paul’s trials).   Yet, nowhere do see them encouraging revolt, or setting up programs to redeem the culture or government.  In fact, we even see Paul telling slaves to obey their masters and work hard (e.g. Ephesians 6:5-9).   This is incredible when one reads Philemon and sees Paul’s heart for Onesimus, that he would be freed by Philemon.  But Paul knew that true change comes only the changed hearts and not by force.  And Paul was out primarily to save souls, and secure them for heaven, where they would live forever, slave or not.

6) We are not surprised then to see Paul contrasting the Christian ethic of mercy and forgiveness with the civil government’s ethic of justice and violence in Romans 12:17-13:7, in the section where he discusses the theme of Christian love from Romans 12:9 - 13:10.  Christians are not to expect that their ethic will ever dominate in this world; thus God ordains governments to keep the order.  There are exceptions, of course, but this is the general rule of things (and has been since Noah).  At the same time, we should not be surprised to see the leavening influence the Gospel has had on societies where it has been strong, and in particular in bringing religious freedom (in time).

7) That the Kingdom of God advances by service and weakness, not force or power.  This is particularly clear in Philippians 2, where Jesus laid down his rights; and in I Corinthians 4 where Paul contrasts the apostolic ministry of suffering with the false teachers love of glory and success.  This approach best suits a Two Kingdom model since taking over a society with Christian principles necessarily involves the use of power and “winning” and wealth.  But Paul says that not many wise, not many influential, not many noble were called, but that God chose the foolish and weak things of this world to shame the strong (I Corinthians 1:26ff).  Two Ways; Two Kingdoms.

8) The Two Kingdom approach honors the strong theology of Christian Freedom we find in the epistles, notably Romans 14, I Corinthians 8-9, and Galatians.  We are free to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling as we make our way through this dark and difficult world.   One Christian’s battle may not be another’s.  Good Christians may have ended up on different sides of the War Between the States (and did!).  Likewise, good Christians in Nazi Germany were free to oppose the mass injustice in different ways.  The Gospel does not prescribe specific solutions to difficult social situations.

9) The Two Kingdom approach recognizes that whatever one’s vocation or sense of call to impact culture, the primary acts of saving faith are “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.”  In other words, the primary focus of the Christian life is not social activism or voting for the right candidate, or redeeming culture, whatever that means, but resting in Christ.  Life in the Church.  Growing in grace and godliness.   Those things will have far more impact than any kingdom of man activity we do.  And we are never to let our justification be questioned when we fail to be as active as we could, and yet still trust Christ to save us.

Much more could be said, and I predict, much more will be said!  But once again, these are not simple matters, and there are many difficult “cases of conscience,” that put this model to the test.   But in the meantime, think on these things, see if they ring true, and pray for the Lord to speak to us Sunday morning through His Word.  See you then! ~ Pastor H