02 June 2016

Two Kingdom Theology in its Compromised Form


This article is an affront to morality and Biblical sensibilities. All too often what passes as Reformed Two Kingdom Theology manifests itself in this type of mostly Sacralist, certainly Kuyperian and loosely Constantinian format. While not wishing to formalise a so-called Christian state it nevertheless champions the legacy of so-called Western Christendom. While its advocates may be anti-Theonomic and so-called Amillennialists, their embrace of Dominionist categories both in the end and on a practical level brings them to more or less the same place. In terms of ethics they might as well be Post-millenarians of the old stripe.

They certainly embrace the same (general) political agenda and share the categories and opinions of the Christian Right. Their theological nuance when it comes to Establishment is in the end something less than a nuance... its empty words.

Christianity wedded to warmongering, imperialistic patriotism is neither a proper Two Kingdom theology nor does it remotely represent the Antithesis presented to us in the New Testament. This version of Two Kingdoms is little more than nuanced version of a Monistic One-Kingdom Dominionist structure.

Oh yes, the author can rest well in his Magisterial Reformation heritage which was merely a continuation of Medieval Roman Catholicism in a different form. He can celebrate Enlightenment statecraft and all its myths as well as the fantasies and the delusions of Capitalism's apologists. He can hide behind statistics and markers that obscure the real nature of the system, its greed and destruction of those who are the wrong end of its spear... let alone the decadence it breeds.

He often rests solidly in the fantasies of the Ivory Tower and the 'fluff' presented here is no exception.

His tears and remorse for admitted crimes are an exercise in insincerity. His history is revisionist in terms of global consensus and respected historical scholarship and is instead perfectly in line with the propaganda of the American Empire and the superficial mythologising of the FOX news crowd. It hardly can claim to be 'Biblically' informed. Even the opening assessment of Europe's present state is inaccurate, misinformed and self-serving.

He may attempt to hold to a Two-Kingdoms doctrine and has enough sense to realise that state-worship has no place in the Holy Assembly.

But what difference does it make?

He's all too eager to chase after Baal once Sunday is concluded and his idolatry and defection from Biblical Christianity has all but decimated his ethical compass and seared his conscience so that in the end he finds himself in a place where he calls good, evil and evil, good.

The author of this piece is one that I generally find distasteful. Whether reading his articles, partaking of his lectures, or listening to his podcasts, he is one that many associates usually think that I would find some affinity or common cause. Rather, he represents much in the Reformed tradition that I find to be thoroughly repugnant. This piece while less overtly theological nevertheless is in my estimation something of a moral and theological outrage.

While such opinions are perceived as 'wise' by his followers and sycophants, it is in truth counsel worthy of Hananiah and all false prophets who scorn the cross and embrace a theology of power, glory and violence.

Yes, I know the author and his associates make much of this issue and argue vociferously that they stand for the Theology of the Cross.

Think again and don't be deceived by their words.

If the reader harbours any doubts about the level of deceit and self-deception, the silly banner about beaches is telling and conclusive.  Such sentiments ignore the genesis of Nazi Germany, the actual course of the war and the state of things in 1944. A banner of the Red Army would be more apropos but hardly in line with the narrative.

These posts, both the article and the banner represent fables and lies unworthy of one who professes to be a shepherd of Christ's people, but instead smack of the hireling, his methods and tools along with the ear tickling and smooth words.


  1. I never understand how he can make moral judgments about image-bearing, the Constitution's recognition of divine(natural) law, and the righteness of fighting "totalitarianism", and yet say Memorial Day can't be in the Church. It's a truly a strange heritage of the Magisterial Reformation where ethics no longer pertain to the Church. I wonder if R. Scott Clark considers how similar he is to his spiritual forbearers who, in fact, enslaved the Africans, killed the Indians, and degraded the Humanity of many peoples and nations?

    From a post like this, I can easily see why Theonomists and other non-2K people can so eviscerated the 2K position. It's non-sensical and almost damnably idiotic.

    1. For clarity's sake:

      When I say his similarity, I mean with the same kind of division within mind and ethics that allows one to murder and thieve six days of the week and put all that hard work aside for an hour of Sunday service. It ought to bewilder when all it seems to be is the zeitgeist that holds you back from the slave-master and the scalper. And so, two hundred years, another Clark will appear disowning the militarism, imperial disregard for life, and the vicious and insatiable global capitalism of the 21st century.

    2. If the Lord tarries that long. Otherwise, I hope we still have a planet left to live on. Based on our current trajectory, that doesn't seem hopeful or likely.

  2. Instead of looking for ways to "engage their cultures" or work with and improve their nation-states, perhaps we need to simply "not engage" with their political theologies at all.

    Galatians 6: 14 But as for me, I will never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The world has been crucified to me through the cross, and I have been crucified to the world... May peace come to all those who follow this rule. http://religiondispatches.org/secede-for-the-kingdom-of-bernie-has-come-near/