Clashing Dominionisms: Kuyperian Two-Kingdom Theology versus Theonomy

https://theaquilareport.com/thoughts-on-the-churchs-true-nature-and-mission-a-partial-rejoinder-to-larry-balls-challenge-to-the-spirituality-of-the-church/

I post this with a few comments just to call attention to the kind of Two Kingdom Theology which needs to be rejected and opposed. It caught my eye because the author (Tom Hervey) was critical of Larry Ball, a Theonomist writer I have countered on many an occasion. Happy to see someone answering him, I was nevertheless mostly disappointed in Hervey's response.

The debate gets somewhat sidetracked over the Presbyterian question of the Spirituality of the Church which harks back to the antebellum period. It was an argument used by theologians that wanted to defend slavery or at least avoid the debate. They argued it was not the Church's place to intervene in political affairs, much to the ire of the abolitionist spectrum. But as supporters of the system, their call for a status quo conservatism was tantamount to political endorsement.

Twentieth century Evangelicalism and much of Confessional Presbyterianism have been marked by a heritage of political engagement if not activism. Often connected to the Establishment, the argument for 'spirituality' has often struck many as self-serving if not ridiculous and deceitful – and they have a point. Indeed no small degree of confusion is found at this juncture as all who reject the New Testament's absolute dichotomy between the World and the Kingdom necessarily have some hope or expectation of a Cultural Christian morality, for justice to be manifest in society, and yet some (driven by political trends and allegiances) have engaged in a kind of self-refuting deceit in their rejection of 'Social Justice'. They seem to want Christianity expressed in society but can't seem to make that work on a theological level, and as such simply fall into a kind of reactionary social conservatism which they then pretend is an expression of detachment and spirituality – as if their deep investment in these structures don't represent a political commitment and the endorsement of a type of social justice. John MacArthur will immediately come to mind for those who understand the point being made and Hervey's third point seems to address this concern – though insufficiently.

Hervey rightly condemns Ball's invective against Greek Dualism though he could have argued more effectively that the issue is not the existence of matter per se or that it is intrinsically offensive but rather the Biblical understanding the present age is under curse and that this world, this present evil age and its works are doomed to perish in the fires of Judgment. As such it is temporal or temporary and thus of a lower order (as a result of the Fall) than the permanent (or real) eschatological or eternal order which will also include re-created and thus redeemed matter. Once this is clarified, the empty critiques of Ball and his ilk are eliminated.

While the historic doctrine of the Church's Spirituality is something of a sham, it had nothing to do with plurality. That said, Hervey also fails in refusing to counter this with the notion argued by Paul throughout his writings – that plurality is the norm for the new age as no genuine sacral state exists anymore. The only sacral entity (as it were) is the Church which is eschatological and thus our presence in this present evil age is ambassadorial. We are strangers, pilgrims, and foreigners living under the kingdoms that serve the god of this world. Their doom and defeat has been declared but does not become a reality in time until the completion of the Parousia – the Second Coming. At which point all those not in Christ will be eliminated, leaving only a redeemed and truly sacral or holy Kingdom. Once again, Dominionism is revealed to be guilty of over-realized eschatology. Theonomy is simply a Judaizing expression of this, sometimes to the extreme.

Our very presence (as well as what we proclaim in worship and evangelism) is a threat to the spiritual powers and if we're faithful they will pursue us and persecute us – which we are told to endure as martyrs and cross-bearers. Ball and those who share his worldly mindset cannot understand this and in fact will not have it. Others like Rushdoony mocked the notion of suffering being a central calling for the Christian, and as such can be accused of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, it's not a gospel or Heavenly Kingdom they are interested in, but rather a worldly kingdom of raw power.

We speak truth as Christians and proclaim it boldly, but the context is not political. Nevertheless as states wax bestial they will come after us when we fail to render what they deem service due to them. Confusing our calling with political aspiration and corrupting it by means of evil political alliances, the Church quickly loses its way and embraces consequentialist ethics and then must construct a new theology to provide a justification for this. This process has been repeated since the days of Constantine when the mainstream Church sold-out to mammon and took the Devil's bargain that Christ rejected while in the wilderness. As a result the Bride turned into a Whore leaving only a persecuted remnant to testify to the truth. Men like Ball hate this doctrine and this remnant. And sadly it must be stated the Magisterial Reformation did not correct this fatal error, but only muddied the waters.

Hervey's rejection of Ball's absurdities are to be lauded, but they fall short and are ineffective.

Hervey's retreat into the categories of Kuyperian Sphere Sovereignty demonstrates the confusion of that school and we must reject some of the assumptions he makes. Assuming that the Church will become an institution plugged into the state apparatus, he makes an apologia for everything from building codes and the entire finance-insurance apparatus it implies, as well as law-enforcement requirements concerning background checks and the like– implied by his abuse-reporting statements. In other words on many levels the Church is certified by the state.

We must reject this line of thinking – though not on the basis of libertarian argument. It's not about resisting statism or a question of personal rights. That's not the issue here and such arguments only result in distraction. The Church is not subject to the state. As individuals we are, but the Church is not and it's only when the Church seeks standing in society and resorts to its institutional models then it willingly offers itself to the state – in the case of the United States this is largely for tax benefits which on a societal level represent a form of subsidy. Libertarians who embrace such schemes reject this line of argument but when Church properties benefit from infrastructure and yet are exempt from paying for it – they are effectively being subsidized as the other tax payers must make up the difference.

The New Testament Church knows nothing of non-profit corporation status, tax breaks, bank accounts, properties, investment, insurance, big buildings with steeples, trustees, or any of the things that are today taken for granted. Once the Church enters this world – the world's system, it begins a process of compromises in which the state imposes requirements, restrictions, and definitions upon the Church that as a result generate a host of new questions, controversies, and dilemmas. Many of the debates in the realm of ecclesiology take place on this institutional even business-rooted ground and as such are divorced from actual Scriptural categories. Much of the debate here follows this course.

Even Hervey in opposing Ball argues the Church has political duties and that the Church should turn (presumably) to lobbying and/or litigation in order to defend its interests. The differences here between Hervey and Ball are more a question of nuance and style. This is why I continue to argue the Two Kingdoms paradigm advocated by many associated with Westminster California and among Confessional Lutherans is in fact not a true Two Kingdoms paradigm at all. A scheme that intertwines the Church in the world system and its various political and mammon-oriented concerns is not the Two Kingdom theology advocated by the New Testament or its advocates throughout Church history.

Nevertheless, there is much to commend with Hervey and he does a decent job navigating the concerns and nuances of these questions – based on the Kuyperian assumptions of his position which I would argue are fundamentally flawed. He properly answers Ball but leaves the reader frustrated as his answers still provide no real resolution or guidance, and still fall short of New Testament teaching.

Contrary to his fourth point, we need to positively assert and demand the separation of Church and State, an assumption which dominates the New Testament and is in the background of many apostolic teachings. From 1 Corinthians to 1 Timothy, as well as Peter's writings it's always a case of us and them accentuated by exhortations that (despite the hermeneutical gymnastics of some) cannot be transformed into some kind of Dominionist call for political influence and activism, but instead teach the very opposite. Hervey fails to make this point but instead takes a tact that more or less agrees with Ball, but softens his assertion and lowers the expectation of effectiveness. This is not the same as the kind of categorical rejection that needs to be called for, that the New Testament demands.

His fifth point is not so much a Scriptural argument but a reflection on historical reality. Once the doors are opened there are those that will use the Church for their ends and if the defenses are removed – the barriers of antithesis as it were, then the wolves enter the flock and wreak havoc. He hits this point a little harder which I appreciate but I think a little more assertiveness is in fact due as this reality has brought the American Church to the point of ruin and functional apostasy – and as such Ball and his teachings represent a clear and present danger, a point I have been making for years.

Hervey's sixth point fails to make the case as it is too bogged down in his already addressed false assumptions – not a little colored by his own politics I think. The Church has played no small role in the politicisation of everything in society. That said, his final paragraph was well said and not a little inspiring.

Reading this piece reminds me why even though I am not in agreement with those who argue for Spirituality or the Kuyperian form of Two Kingdom theology, there are nonetheless blessings and insights to be found. I cannot endorse them but they're certainly on a better track than the more extreme forms of Dominionist thought, let alone the Theonomic Judaizers who still hold considerable sway and continue to grow in influence. On one level there's little point in treating symptoms as opposed to the problem, but it can be hoped that those engaging on this level will think more deeply about these questions and eventually realize this.