For most of the last century and continuing thus far in the current millennium, the majority position among Christians identified with the Reformed tradition (largely Calvinist Presbyterians and the Dutch in America) has been to assert the univocal nature of the Lordship of Christ over all creation. Not only an individual's religious life and the social life of the Church but also, at least incipiently, the whole created order is in the process of redemption. The place of Church tends to be depreciated while the Kingdom of God--as a broad social order expressing itself in cultural activities--appreciates in value. "Gospel" emphasis falls on structural social reformation rather than inward individual salvation.
Of late--and by late I mean the past 10-15 years--has been an initiation or revival (depending on one's point of view) of a church-centered take on the rule of Christ. God is, to be sure, in charge of the whole world but the locus of redemption is individuals in the Church, not culture in the world. Human cultural activity is simply cruising for destruction. Books like Mike Schutt's Redeeming Law are simply oxymoronic. Law is not being redeemed and isn't even redeemable. A Christian law school like, say Regent Law School, is joining together what God has put asunder. Or so say the "two-kingdom" folks.
Many of the leading two-kingdom theologians can be found in on the far West coast of America, at Westminster Seminary California. Might there be a connection between geography and theology?
A few days ago I listened to an interview with Monica Ganas, author of Under the Influence: California's Intoxicating Spiritual and Cultural Impact on America. Ganas contends that the "idea" of California, what she terms"California-ism," the ability to recreate oneself free from past entanglements, whether familial, cultural, or religious, drives culture wherever one lives in America. Culture, from the individual (plastic surgery, anyone?) to organized religion (take my Crystal Cathedral, please!) is infinitely malleable. Turner's Frontier Thesis idealized.
How might California-ism explain the locus of two-kingdom theology? Any orthodox Christian should find California-ism reprehensible. Humans are most decidedly not malleable. Instead, we're depraved. Enslaved to sin. Natural-born idolaters. And human culture? So tainted, so polluted, the two-kingdom folks say, that the idea of redeeming it should make us gag. Sitting in the midst of California-ism, Westminster Seminary California cannot help but (over)react to the seemingly omnipresent City of Man.
What the two-kingdom folks might be overlooking, however, is the power of God. No one need doubt that God's redeeming work is centered in the Church. But one need not conclude that the Church contains it.
17 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I doubt whether two kingdom theology springs from California-ism. I find it more likely that two kingdom folks find their mindset in the New Testament, which was written by people who probably did not yet imagine the possibility of progressively redeeming the entire world (much less redeeming it, at least in part, through law, as Schutt suggests in his book). Historically, it would have been very hard to imagine such a possibility before Constantine. And Jesus seemed to be constantly tamping down such imagination by insisting that His kingdom was not of this world.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Scott, for the interesting read.
Respectfully,
Louis Hensler
Thanks for thoughtful reading and a comment. Of course, the "cultural redemptionists" have their texts and rationales too. Both points of view have been around for a long time. One (read: "I")cannot help but wonder if varying milieux of Christian living and theologizing have as much to do with the differing conclusions as the the text itself.
ReplyDelete