Which Kingdom Is Which?

In the beginning of Mark 7, Jesus confronts the Pharisees of His day about substituting their traditions for God's Word (click here for the biblical account). Why bring that up here? It is because D.G. Hart (click here for a bio) has, in one of his blogs, written about the danger of "baptizing" (Hart's term) the politics of any politician or religious person who is advancing a cause or crusade. That "baptizing" may be done by either the person behind the crusade or some admiring supporter. And Hart takes this baptizing of causes and crusades to task from what is called a Reformed 2 Kingdom Theology (2KT) approach (click here for his article).

The above reference to the beginning passage of Mark 7 was made because Hart's approach to the subject comes strictly from his Reformed 2KT model of thought (click here and there for quick reads on Reformed 2KT). And he is using that model of thought to interpret situations and determine how Christians should respond. Here we should note that developing models of thought by which we interpret the world around us and our obligations to God and others is almost a fetish for conservative theologians. The upside of that is that sometimes those models of though give us a better, though still partial, picture of what the Scriptures say about things. But even on a good day, because our models of though give us partial pictures of reality, we need to be careful not to substitute our model of thought for the Scriptures lest we become like the pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in Mark 7.

 The essence of 2KT is found in its name. All Christians belong to 2 distinct kingdoms: a given kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God. And followers of 2KT promote varying degrees of separation between the two kingdoms. As noted by one of the cited references above, Hart teaches that the two kingdoms are so different that they are separate. And by separate, that means that neither the Church nor the State can claim any legitimacy in correcting the other. And what logically follows the teaching that the Church cannot not correct the State is that the State cannot do anything that can be considered sin. The State can be wrong in terms of violating its own laws or perhaps international laws--can't remember Hart's position on that last set of laws.  But outside of that, the State can't be charged with practicing any sin regardless of how it treats others. We should also note that Hart's own political views seem to be a conservative libertarian and, if memory serves, seems to follow one of his heroes, J. Gresham Machen,  in terms of political views.

What Hart wants to state in this particular article is that we need to use 2KT to prevent the alignment of the Gospel with political and social causes. And that applies for both liberals and conservatives. Thus, he states that if one cannot associate Trump's policies with God's Kingdom, then the same applies to Martin Luther King Jr.'s agenda. He states this because some were saying that those Christians who support Trump, also support what seems to be his unbiblical political pursuits. And the only way Christians can do that is to employ 2KT. Likewise, some say the same of those Christians who support the Democratic Party and its agenda. And 2KT, especially Hart's version, comes into play because it is saying that the State cannot sin unless it violates its own or possibly international laws. And even then, those violations are not technically sins according to Hart.

Thus, Hart's point is that Reformed 2KT, though not condemning the Republicans, the Democrats, or the work of Martin Luther King Jr., prohibits any kind of association of the Gospel with these agendas.

Now according to Hart's version of 2KT, since it can be consistently stated that nothing that the Republicans, the Democrats, nor King and his followers promote can be associated with the Gospel, the question is is whether that is also true according to the Scriptures. In other words, are all political policies and laws equal in terms of their moral standing or are some political policies and laws more moral, according to the Scriptures, than other policies and laws? According to  Hart's 2KT, Trump's policies and King's agenda rest on the same moral plane.

Before addressing that point, we should note that, according to 2KT, the standards that determine who can be in good standing in society are not identical to those that determine who can be in good standing in the Church. Likewise a given state and the Church are not given an identical set of standards and responsibilities. But not having the exact same standards and moral obligations doesn't imply having no standards and moral obligations in common.

Thus, in comparing the present agenda of Donald Trump and the past agenda of Martin Luther King Jr., can we say that these two agendas are on the same moral plane? And if we cannot say that, are we automatically "baptizing" one person's or group's agenda over the other's?

We should note here that the problem with Hart's 2KT rests with historical counterexamples. Did the Nazi state sin when it invaded other nations or conducted the Holocaust? Was the Nazi state guilty of violating the commandments prohibiting murder and theft?

But it's not just the Nazi government that must be required to account for any violations of the commandments prohibiting murder and theft as if it set the minimal standard of evil, it is all governments and states that must be held accountable for practicing murder and theft. Using a counterexample like the Nazis' reign of terror points to the Achilles' heal of Hart's 2KT.

And yet Hart has a valid point even when we cannot say that Trump's policies are as moral as King's agenda. Even though King's agenda is more moral than Trump's, we still must resist any urge to equate the agenda of those working to advance social justice with the Scriptures. So though, we can't "baptize" King's agenda over Trump's, it is wrong to deny the sinfulness that King saw and personally experienced from any state or government. In fact, if we use Hart's 2KT to deny that states can sin, we are substituting traditions for the Word of God as illustrated in the above Scripture passage. Thus, though Hart has some valid points to make in his article, they remain biblically problematic when applying them to real life.