Law/Gospel and the Two Kingdoms: Paganism, Democracy, and the Separation of Church and State

By Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

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.

What I am suggesting is that the church is called to preach the moral law--even when that moral law is diametrically opposed to the civil and criminal laws of a pagan nation, even though that nation generally calls itself a "democracy."  Pure capitalism and lassez faire economics can be as atheistic and materialistic as the Hegelian dialectic philosophy which Marx borrowed to support his socialistic and communistic political philosophy.  After all, it is pragmatically feasible for the state to endorse the porn industry since it is a multi-million dollar industry.  It is also economically and politically rewarding to endorse homosexuality, gay marriage and transgenderism--especially since that is quickly becoming the status quo as a result of the relentless propaganda released through the popular media.  The medium is the massage and the message.  The mindless masses do not wish to think more than superficially; so if David Letterman or President Obama says it is God's gift to be be gay, then of course it must be so.

The error of the theonomists and the reconstructionists is rooted in a confusion of civil law with the moral law.  In addition, theonomic theology for all practical purposes confuses justification with obedience.  These issues are problematic for the church.  The mission of the church is not cultural transformation via common grace as Kuyper and Bavinck and the Van Tilians insist.  In fact, common grace is nothing more than an adaptation of an Arminian and semi-pelagian doctrine into the Reformed faith under the dissimulation that this is really nothing more than general providence.  But in fact it is much more than that.  The doctrine of common grace claims to oppose the idea that this "grace" is saving grace in any way, yet the doctrine has been used to justify post-millennial ambitions for ushering in the return of Christ and a future utopia on earth.

Other problems with endorsing common grace as "Reformed" is that this doctrine in essence exalts general revelation to a status of equality with special revelation.  Even worse, common grace eventually gains a status of superiority to special revelation in Holy Scripture.  When this happens the doctrine of theistic evolution ensues.  From that point the mythological character of Genesis 1-11 becomes the established view, which really is nothing more than neo-orthodoxy posing as Reformed theology.  If Genesis 1-11 is "inspired myth" or "story," then what prevents the adoption of the same view of the whole of Scripture?  The creation account need not be a literal creation since God "could" have created the earth and man over long periods of time or ages, lending credibility to modern science as a source for philosophical and religious truth.  Unfortunately, once that door is opened religion, philosophy, theology, and metaphysics disappear into the vague morass of Kantian irrationalism.  Dr. Bruce Waltke might still believe in the historical reality of Adam and Eve as speculative first humans and primogenitors who evolved from apes, but eventually even that myth will be rejected in favor of "scientific" materialism.

The slippery slope continues to the homosexuality issue.  If Scripture is wrong about creation and evolution, then surely it could be wrong when the moral law of God condemns homosexuality, adultery and fornication?  Those are really just outdated moral codes of a pre-modern, theocratic nation, aren't they?  (Leviticus 18:22-29).

I totally agree with the two kingdoms view in that we must never confuse law and gospel.  Further, we must never confuse the gospel with cultural transformation or some post-millennial utopia to be ushered in by man's efforts to transform nations and cultures via common grace.  First of all, the Reformed doctrine is called "general providence" and under the Reformed doctrine there is not necessarily any transformation of any nation or culture.  In fact, in God's sovereign judgment individuals and nations can be hardened as punishment or simply just out of God's mere justice on the basis of the imputed guilt of Adam's original sin (Job 21:30; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 3:23; 5:12-21; 9:11-13, 20-23).  It is clear that in the Old Testament God did indeed judge entire nations (Psalm 110:5-6; Isaiah 45:7; Daniel 4:34-35; Amos 3:6).  God is not just some loving grandfather in heaven.  He is more than the ultimate being of benevolence (John 3:16; 1 John 4:7-8).  God is also holy and will execute His justice on earth and in the final judgment (Isaiah 6:1-5; Zechariah 7:9-14).

If the two kingdoms theology approves of the state's endorsement of evil in the form of abortion rights and gay/transgender rights as basic "human rights", then it has gone beyond the special revelation of the moral law in Scripture and has instead endorsed natural law, which is really nothing more than the self-evident axiom that man invents his own laws by natural reason rather than by special revelation from God as based on the principle of general equity.  Given that relativistic bent to natural law what is illegal in the "democratic" nation today may be the status quo of tomorrow, including homosexuality, pedophilia, and even euthanasia as a means of controlling poverty and human suffering.

In short, the two kingdoms view is correct inasmuch as it states that the role of the church is not political or social transformation of nations and the culture at large.  On the other hand, parachurch organizations are not churches or denominations and technically speaking it is not wrong for Reformed and Evangelical Christians to support political lobbies that speak out prophetically against the moral evils and vices that are currently being endorsed by the pagan state. 

Furthermore, when President Barack Obama had the audacity to say that God "created all men equal" and tied that phrase to the homosexual marriage issue, he was in effect saying that gay marriage is good and is blessed by God.  This is evident by the fact that immediately after he made that statement in his inauguration speech Kelly Clarkson sang, "My Country 'Tis of Thee."  The land of the pilgrims is now in favor of gay marriage?  Ironically, it could be that God did "create" homosexuals but not the way that Obama has envisioned or implied.  It might be that they were created as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Romans 1:18-32; 9:22).

In a recent Sunday school class at Covenant Presbyterian Church, Lakeland, Florida, one of the Florida Supreme Court justices taught.  Justice Charles T. Canady was appointed by Governor Jeb Bush.  He is politically conservative.  What troubled me, however, was that the oath he swore "before God" when taking office was that he would uphold the law.  He was upset, he said, because someone thought he said he swore to uphold the "Lord."  Of course, he was correct.  The separation of church and state means that the state cannot endorse religion at all.  But why swear on the Bible before God to uphold laws that may be constitutionally acceptable but morally reprehensible by the standards of God's moral law as it is revealed in Holy Scripture?  Can there be an absolute separation between church and state?  Or does such a view eventually lead to a secular state that is essentially nothing more than a materialistic capitalism which is quickly becoming a materialistic and atheistic socialism?  I guess religion is merely the opiate of the people after all?

Mike Horton is completely right in his critique of the pelagianism infesting Evangelicalism at large.  Unfortunately, this pelagianism is quickly infesting the more Evangelical Reformed denominations.  When the Reformed faith becomes secondary to being part of the broad Evangelical movement, then the stage is set for a descent into an anthropocentric deism rather than the emphasis on God's absolute sovereignty over all things.  Even Horton has hinted that he thinks it ought to be the law of the land that gays have the right to marry.  After all, it's none of the church's business what laws the state passes.  Unfortunately, when the nation goes into worse evil and paganism the church accommodates to the culture more, even in Reformed churches.  Rather than risking the "fundamentalist" label, Horton would rather be seen as the tolerant Evangelical Presbyterian who is great friends with heretics like Roger Olson, the Open Theist and hyper-classical-Arminian.

Horton's cohort, R. Scott Clark seems to reject gay marriage in the church in his comments in the article posted as, "Steve Chalke Comes Out For Homosexual Marriage."  To use an old Pentecostal cliche, "Thank-you, Jesus!"  Clark is against gay marriage in the church.  But he conveniently refuses to say that he is against gay marriage as a matter of the law of the land.  The two issues are linked, as anyone can see.  The implications of the nation going in the normalizing and normativizing of homosexuality as a "human right" carries implications for the church in that the state will now try to invade the religious arena and silence the prophetic voice of the preachers in their pulpits and the church as an organization.  Furthermore, Clark seems to have a deistic view of providence since he refuses to link natural disasters with God's judgment against original sin and actual sins:

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).

The fact of the matter is that evil exists in the world because of God's judgment against all humanity on the basis of Adam's rebellion (Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12-21; 8:20-22).  It is no secret that God judges through natural disasters, wars, and diseases (Deuteronomy 28; Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; James 4:1-4).  Anyone reading the Bible from cover to cover can see that these general principles apply to nations, churches, and individuals today.  Although Clark is correct in saying that we cannot make particular assessments of specific disasters as God's judgment against particular sins, we can reasonably say that all natural disasters, calamities, diseases, famines, wars, crime, poverty, etc., et. al., both natural and moral evil, are the result of God's judgment.  To giggle at God's sovereignty over evil as Clark does is nothing short of blasphemous and implies a form of pragmatic deism.

My view in regards to the state's laws that violate the moral law is that these laws are fair game in the pulpit.  That is, if we can preach against the sins of individuals, then the pulpit must be used to condemn the sins of nations as well.  The Bible does indeed address individual sin.  But it also addresses corporate sin as the doctrine of the federal headship of Adam demonstrates well enough.  When a nation chooses to commit genocide, should not pastors condemn that sin as much as any other sin?  Suppose more pastors had condemned the genocide of the Jews as sinful?  Maybe more individual Christians and Christian parachurch organizations could have influenced the USA to intervene earlier?  If sin is both individual and corporate then it follows that the church has the responsibility to call for the repentance of both individuals and corporate bodies, including nations and churches.  Although we cannot convert entire nations, we can and should speak against all sin and call for individuals and nations to accept the gospel message (Matthew 28:19-21).

There is danger for the church in regards to getting involved in political issues, namely that the message becomes confused with social reform and the social gospel.  But there is equal danger in ignoring the responsibility of the church and all Christians to call sin what it is:  utterly sinful.  That applies to our beloved pagan democracy as well.  It ought to be remembered that the loyalty and citizenship of the believing Christian is in heaven, not in the United States of America (Philippians 3:20).  If more so-called "churches" were willing to become prophetic voices against the evil of atheistic state governments, there might be more conversions to Christ.  As long as the church cowers before the state and refuses to preach the truth of God's propositional revelation in Scripture in matters of both the moral law and the gospel of free grace, then pelagianism and atheism will continue to dominate the public sphere and the political realm.  

For the churches to hide behind tolerance and the two kingdoms theology, as a means of avoiding the duty to preach the moral law to everyone everywhere, is to violate God's moral law by omitting what God has commanded the church to do.  "Preach the Word!" (2 Timothy 4:2).  The Word of God includes both law and gospel, as even the proponents of the two kingdoms theology must admit.  Without law there is no conviction and no need for gospel (Romans 3:20; 7:7).

Why is it that the Christian and Reformed churches are no longer the moral conscience of the nation?  Could it be partly because the two kingdoms theology--as right as it is in general principle--has gone too far in the other direction?  Just asking.