Seeing that our interview with Darryl Hart on the regulative principle was released today, I figure I should go all in and just make it a DGH day. The culture wars continue and the 2K discussion threads multiply and lengthen, yet it was something I recently read in a book (of all places) that I found to be particularly striking. In Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism, D. G. Hart and John R. Muether see many of these themes taking root in a key time in American Presbyterian history.
…the late-nineteenth-century ecumenical impulse was a manifestation of the social gospel, whether it deserved to be designated by capital letters or not. Of course, substantial numbers of Presbyterians continued to believe in the necessity of individual conversion and regeneration. But often the salvation of individuals was a means toward the end of shoring up public order. More important, the areas in which Protestants agreed to cooperate overwhelmingly concerned matters of public morality. Observance of the Sabbath, consumption of alcohol, labor and management issues, and the dangers of infidelity, materialism, and Roman Catholicism were all issues that had a direct bearing on public life and became the criteria for judging whether or not the nation was Christian.
In turn these concerns moved Presbyterians to conceive of the work of the church more as social than spiritual. It was the New School’s idea of the church prevailing over the Old School’s. Public morality and civic righteousness pushed aside Word and sacrament. Practical results rather than doctrinal standards became the measurement of churches. [p. 173]
This excerpt, from Hart and Muether’s chapter “Ecumenism and Progress,” reminds us that the issues we so often think to be new have precursors in ages past. A reexamination of Presbyterian history can shed light on the concerns of all sides of the present 2K discussion, but we may need to step back even farther before we get there.
Personally, I think the 2K discussion gets unnecessarily confused by perpetual equivocation. It’s as if we need a version or reference number after each instance of “2K” to know about which variety we’re speaking. At a very basic level, many people would consider most Vossians and Van Tilians (and even Kuyperians!) to be “2K.” Vossians, for instance, often get accused of being so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good, and I’ve interacted with plenty of Van Tilians and Kuyperians that hold to a healthy view of the spirituality of the church.
But in my estimation, these distinctions are frequently glossed, and people find themselves inside (or outside) a camp to which they may or may not actually belong. For example, there ought to be space between a concept of the separation of church and state and a technical definition of two-kingdom theology that incorporates specific views of revelation and natural law. Until we get a handle on these issues, we won’t make much progress—didactic, that is, not theonomic.
Camden, since it’s all about me (though I may have missed my day), I’d argue that the Reformed tradition has the kind of clarity for which you call. We have a basic distinction between Christ as redeemer and Christ as creator. It was the Dutch Reformed tradition that blurred this. VanDrunen’s book on NL&2K reveals how especially Dooyeweerd blurred this distinction.
Most of this comes down to, then, what the kingdom of God is. It is possible to distinguish between God’s rule over creation and his special gracious rule over the church, as in WCF 25 — the visible church is the kingdom of Christ. But you would not believe how many contemporary Reformed believers — even Vossians, who veered neo-Calvinist in his book on the Kingdom — object to the specificity of the Confession.
And once the kingdom of Christ becomes fuzzy, the keys of the kingdom blur into redeeming the culture.
Thus ends today’s exhortation.
From a recent post at oldlife.org: “After all, the only biblical alternative to 2k is theonomy, and even theonomists have not yet revolted against the American regime.”
And one of its comments: “Terry, the only biblical models for politics are Israel of the OT, or “my kingdom is not of this world” of the NT. What am I missing?”
I believe we need to make a distinction between a separation of church and state, for instance and a particular formulation of 2K theology. Again, any competent Vossian or Kuyperian ought to be able to account for Christ’s declaration that his kingdom is not of this world. But does that make them 2K? It is highly suspect that the genitive “of this world [ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου]” is meant to entail particular views of nature/grace and general/special revelation as found in certain varieties of 2K theology. To define 2K in the broadest Jn 18:36 category is to lump many different Reformed camps together so as to risk making the label meaningless.