The independence of the church from state interference was the intended meaning of the principle of separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. But those are political issues which are not clearly outlined in Scripture. I have to wonder if the two kingdoms theology is not reading modern political views into Scripture which may or may not be scriptural? This is not to say that I am giving any sort of endorsement to the theology of the theonomists and reconstructionists. It is only to point out that if theonomists are reading an alien paradigm into Scripture, then so might the two kingdoms view be doing the same thing. I am certain that Luther would be appalled to learn that his theology of the two kingdoms was being used to endorse homosexuality in the civic realm.
We’ve also had discussions, however, about the problems associated with interpreting providence, first under the heading of knowing the will of God and also in response to the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities. As I pointed out in those places both as a matter of history and, more fundamentally, as a matter of biblical revelation, we are clearly taught not to try to interpret providence. It is a temptation that we must resist. When God has not revealed himself (either explicitly or by “good and necessary inference” from Scripture) we should be silent. The plain fact is that we don’t know why a tornado struck that steeple just at that moment. It is fascinating, and surely it is sobering, just as a cancer diagnosis is sobering. But think of the difficulties attached to interpreting providence. (See: Interpreting Providence).