American Christians have been suffering an identity crisis for a long time.
Last year, however, that same identity crisis reached its crescendo during the forced COVID-19 lockdowns and emergency “orders.” These orders, you’ll remember, had massive implications upon practical Christian life. The most important ingredient in Christian religion, public worship, found itself in the crosshairs of government-enforced limitations on “large” gatherings.
Atop all this comes riots and various forms of civil unrest. Anything from burning down buildings to commandeering whole city blocks have been normalized over the last several months. And now, a rocky, uncertain presidential transition looms.
The flow of information hasn’t helped either. Error moves as quickly as truth. No one seems to really know what is going to happen in the next few days, weeks, months. All this has led many Christians to ask the question, “What do we do?” And that question breaks into several others: “Do we obey our government?” “What should my church be doing? How should it be responding to the times?” and many others. The need for these questions to be answered will only grow in the coming days. And how we understand the church’s relationship to the rest of the world will only become all the more relevant.
Current events usually draw people’s attention to eschatology. Rightly so. However, there is something that stands behind eschatology as more basic or fundamental. Premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism are all three formed or concluded on the basic identities of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. One might argue eschatology defines both of these things, but that would put the final cause in front of the formal and material causes, which would lead to utilitarianism or a sheer pragmatism. The natures of these kingdoms must be defined prior to finalizing an eschatology.
So, while current events and the current circumstance of Christ’s church may provoke serious eschatological thought, do not forget that there are certain, more fundamental elements to be considered first in our biblical and systematic theologies.
What are the Two Kingdoms?
When theologians speak of the two kingdoms, they are referring to the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man, each of which must now be defined.
An easy, perhaps somewhat abstract way, to define the kingdom of God is to understand it as all that which comes to men through the New Covenant. Simply put, the kingdom of God comes through the covenant of grace. We could write a whole book on everything that comes from the New Covenant. But, at the risk of oversimplification, for our purposes here, we will understand the kingdom of God as that which comes to God’s people through the special, saving grace of God available only in the New Covenant, which has been established in the blood of Christ.
The kingdom(s) of men involve those powers given to men at creation, and also according to the Noahic covenant, post-fall. Herman Bavinck helpfully notes:
There are all kinds of power and authority on earth: in the family, society, the state, art, science, and so forth. But the power of the church is essentially distinct and completely independent from all of these. For all this power comes from God as the creator of heaven and earth (Rom. 13:1), but this ecclesiastical power comes directly from God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; Acts 20:28).
The kingdom(s) of men come through natural graces (i.e. common grace), and the kingdom of God comes through special or supernatural graces (i.e. special grace). To put it in covenantal language: The kingdom(s) of men come through the Noahic covenant, a recapitulation of the creation mandate adapted to man’s sinful nature made in Genesis 8-9; and the kingdom of God comes through the covenant of grace (or New Covenant).
Distinct, but Not Separate
When speaking of the two kingdoms, it is easy to separate the two entirely. Such a separation can give way to an escapist or pacifist approach to civil society. While civil society (man’s kingdom) is not the church, much less the kingdom of heaven, it nevertheless ought to occupy a place on the church’s list of priorities.
While the biblical data necessitates, I believe, a two kingdom approach, it also sets forth a healthy relationship between those two kingdoms, even on this side of glory. In other words, the two kingdoms are distinct, but not separate.
Jesus, in Matthew 5:14, says, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.” And in Revelation 21:24, the kings of the earth bring their glory into this capitol city of heaven, “And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.”
The church, therefore, which is called a city on a hill is not abstracted nor isolated from the rest of the world. In fact, being the light of the world denotes the idea of something visible, known, a revealer of truth which influences the world around it. In this way, it acts as salt, a seasoning if you will, upon the earth (Matt. 5:13).
Recently, I’ve observed what I believe to be a clear definition of the nature of this relationship between the kingdom of God on the one hand, and the kingdom of man on the other in the first amendment of the United States Constitution. It reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice how the state cannot control the church through coercion nor legislation, but also how provision is made for the church to influence the state through freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and through peaceful assemblies. Unfortunately, today, many who tend toward the left want to take the power of persuasion away from the church. Church and state are completely separate, it is thought. Many Christians, in their isolationist view of the church, also, in practice, believe in a complete separation between the two kingdoms.
The first amendment, however, strikes the right biblical note, I believe. State powers cannot determine religion, religion cannot legislate state powers. But religion most certainly has the power to influence the state through lawful means. This dynamic is lucidly described at the end of the book of Acts:
Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him (Acts 28:30-31).
Paul utilized his station as a Roman citizen, his rights, privileges, etc., to proclaim the kingdom of God to people living in the kingdom of man. And in this way, Paul powerfully influenced the kingdom of man with the kingdom of God.
Concluding Thoughts
Christians need to recapture this relationship between the two kingdoms before the church in America can effectively address the prevailing issues of our day. Christians must reimagine their roles in society. They are citizens of heaven first, but they must also understand their responsibility as citizens of this world to this world, that is, to be its light.
Questions of how this is done are also answered in Scripture. In short, Christians must play the #LongGame. They must love their spouses; train up their children in godliness; invest in their churches; and influence their immediate communities with the gospel and godly principles through lawful means. The enemy most hates faithfulness in the little things.