Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 15, 2023

Feb 7

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman regarding his remarks during a Heidelblog podcast which said that the Church as an institution is not to call on society to change.

And so the Church as an institution is suppose to reprimand society for its sexual immorality and acceptance of abortion, but it is suppose to keep silent when the nation wages immoral wars, has a lifestyle that continually pollutes the world and contributes to increasing climate change, embraces an economy that continues to increase the wealth disparity between the classes and races, and continues in its systemic racism? Of course, I left out a few things.

If the Church is to call on the sinners to repent as part of preaching the Gospel, and people both commit personal sins and participate in corporate sins of the state and society, then the Church as an institution is to call on the state, society, and the people  that are apart of the state and society to repent of committing corporate sins, not just individual sins. Otherwise, the Church as an institution might find itself repeating the same sins that it has been committing in the past few centuries: siding with wealth and power.

I say all of that as one who believes that neither Transformationalism nor 2KT is either correct in everything or is wrong in everything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 8

To Heidelblog and Erick-Woods Erickson and his article that criticizes the movement and the message of the 'Jesus gets us' commercials on tv.

Erick-Woods Erickson's full article can be found at:

    https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/a-waste-of-money

Erick-Woods Erickson could have wasted lest time and words by saying the following: When cultural relevance takes precedence over God's Revelation of Himself, then we are taught that we are the ones who seek to change Christ rather than accepting the fact that it is Christ who changes those who believe. The difference between the two approaches could not be more binary. In the former, we are taught that we are to make Christ in our image. In the latter, Christ starts to conform those who believe into His image.

Other than that, Erickson simply exhibits the same kind of behavior of those he is criticizing by showing partiality to political conservatism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Kay Clarity and the reposting of her article that calls conservatives to arms to battle "terrorists" from the 'progressive left' who are censoring conservatives like herself. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Outside of recognizing that the above article was just an emotional tirade, this article is a call to arms without establishing the premise for such a call. The premise is claimed, but never defined and documented. Let alone the black-white world where "terrorists" from the 'progressive, radical left' are seeking to silence conservatives. Yes, there are some instances of where some conservatives have been shouted down or censored. But there is no documentation provided which supports that such silencing is widespread. On the other hand, we should note the actions taken by conservative state governments, such as those in Florida, Texas, and Missouri, that are seeking to censor and silence the teaching of Critical Race Theory or any other view of the history of racism in America that would infringe on one becoming an enthusiastically loyal American patriot.

The above is not just an emotional tirade, it is an authoritarian appeal. Unfortunately authoritarianism has infected not just some conservatives, but some liberals and some leftists as well. And it is authoritarianism that moves people to try to silence those whose views which it objects to. That applies regardless of the ideology of those seek to silent others. And so it applies to some who are conservatives, some who are liberals, and some who are leftists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Simon Joost on his blog article on applying 2K Theology (2KT) to how the Church should relate to the State in South Africa during the Post-Apartheid era. Joost seems to believe that, because of 2KT, there should be an apartheid between Church and State. But that apartheid approach is balanced by the promotion of Natural Law. Boost does not talk much about the promotion of Natural Law in this article. Joost's article appeared in the Heidelblog.

When we put our pet theologies and confessional standards on too high a pedestal, they become a canon for the canon of the Scriptures. We should never ignore those theologies and confessional standards because they consist of writings from Christian theologians and teachers of the past. We just can't put their content on too high a pedestal or we become traditionalists. The problem with traditionalism is that it serves as the other side of the coin of narcissism. And in being the other side of the coin of narcissism it shares some of narcissism's weaknesses. 

And so we come to Reformed 2KT and its interaction with the government. We should note that while the government deals with just the the relationships between people (the horizontal), the Church also deals with the relationships between people and God (the vertical). And 2KT is correct in producing a partial apartheid between the Church and State though that apartheid can't be so consistent and profound that the Church is not able to speak prophetically to the State. We should note that 2KT's major weakness is that it infringes either significantly or completely allowing and enabling the. Church to speak prophetically the state.

One factor should be considered here. When we identify as being a Christian, everything that we do and say and everything that we refrain from doing and saying can become identified with the Gospel and thus our stumbling bring can bring discredit to the Gospel. And that puts all of us Christians in the same sinking boat because as James says: ' We all stumble in many ways..' That admission from James implies that we should be gentle when feeling compelled to correct other Christians whom we perceive as hurting the reputation of the Gospel.

Certainly the Church as an institution should not try to run the state and society, which when it has happened has greatly harmed the reputation of the Gospel. Here, we should be cautious about promoting the idea that the State must enforce what the Church sees as natural law. The unnecessary promotion of natural law can be a backdoor approach to the Church trying to run the State. On the other hand, when the Church as an institution is reluctant to speak and act out against social injustices, it can, and has, brought just as much harm to the reputation of the Gospel as when the Church has tried to run or become the State.

Today, it seems that 2KT promoters use Natural Law to defend their insistence that the State must codify certain Biblical standards for sexual behavior while use 2KT to defend their silence on social injustices allowed, or even promoted, by the State. Such falls in line with the past few centuries of Church History where the Church has sorely pressed people regarding their individual behaviors while siding with wealth and power via silent complicity when it comes to not speaking prophetically to the State and society in the face of social injustices.  

We should also note one more point. Christians are called to suffer and even die without resisting their persutors for the sake of the Gospel. But are Christians called on to do the same when facing social injustices with unbelievers? That question was never directly addressed in the New Testament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 12

To Heidelblog and Samuel G. Parkinson for the part of Parkinson's article quoted by the Heidelblog post. Parkinson's article was about practicing the Regulative Principle and how including the reciting of creeds like the Nicene Creed should be included as part of the Regulative Principle.

Samuel G. Parkinson's full article can be found at:

    https://credomag.com/2023/01/the-regulative-principle-and-the-corporate-recitation-of-creeds/

From Parkinson's article, Parkinson seems like a traditionalist, which is the other side of the coin of being a narcissist. I say that not as an insult, though it sounds  like one, but in order to make a point. The point being that perhaps in deciding on following the Regulative Principle that he is elevating a certain set of time periods from the past above the present time so that if there could be an exchange of ideas between the two time periods, his set of time periods would have everything to teach and nothing to learn from the present time period. That is the problem with traditionalism. Narcissism, of course, reverses that teaching and learning direction.

Regarding the Regulative Principle, we don't see that principle stated, practiced, or promoted in the New Testament. There is no clear communication describing how worship must be to the exclusion of other practices. We might even add that the Regulative Principle was not followed by Jesus when He lived on earth. We can also add that there is no New Testament directive telling us to recite creeds during worship. But here we should also caution that whatever ways we choose to worship God, the attitude of worshiping God must be central to the ways we worship. 

We should that in Acts 15, the Apostles decided to reduce the requirements for Gentile believers to be counted as believers. Holding to the Regulative Principle for worship and the reciting of creeds during worship shows an attitude of adding to requirements for Gentile believers. It's not that we should refuse to recite creeds like the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, but it should be optional. Also, we should call into question the insistence on the holding to the Regulative Principle.

Finally, in describing the basis for the Regulative Principle for worship, there seems to be too much focus on the particulars so that follow the letter of the law while missing the spirit of the law. What is singing, preaching/teaching, and read but ways of communicate God's Word to His people. So what is most important here, that we sing, preach/teach, and read or that we communicate God's Word?

Where The Reformed Church May Not Only Be Antinomian

Suppose you wanted to take someone's property but the Church prohibited from doing so unless you joined the right group, would you join that group? Or suppose you wanted to kill someone or destroy something and the Church told you that is unless you joined the right group, you were not allowed. Would you join that group? Chances are that if that is what you wanted to do, then you wouldn't care what the Church said. But the problem is that much of the Reformed Church works this way. And the resulting inconsistency is that while the Church will tell individual believers what they are not allowed to do, it winks at certain groups that violate moral laws which becomes very personal to the victims.

When an individual Christian denies their obligation to follow the moral law, it is called 'antinomianism.' This word basically comes from the Greek preposition 'anti' and from the root word for law, 'nomos.' So to be antinomian is to be against the law. To be more specific, to be antinomian is to be against the third use of the law of Moses. The third use of the law of Moses tells Christians how to live after being saved. And here we are specifically referring to the moral laws in the law of Moses (listen to the Heidelblog discussion on this subject by W. Robert Godfrey and R. Scott Clark by clicking here). 

Now maybe 'against' is a bit strong, but antinomian means that one does not believe that the Law of Moses applies in anyway to the lives of believers because who needs the law when one is already saved by grace. And most from the Reformed tradition strongly oppose antinomianism in certain cases. Note that we said "certain cases," an insertion to which  those same Reformed people would strongly object. They would ask, "When do we give antinomianism a free pass?" 

Those from the Reformed tradition allow for antinomianism when the government directs the violence or when the government colludes with the economic system to rob from the have nots and give to the haves. Note here that antinomianism is involved because the Church, as a whole, is neither demanding the government to stop engaging in wanton violence nor is it requiring the government supported economic system to stop stealing from the vulnerable. And when the Church as a whole does not challenge institutions to stop and repent, it is not challenging the individual Christians and nonChristians who make up part of those institutions-- remember that institutions consist of people--to repent of the sins they're participating in. In fact, if we take some of the lessons from WWII serious enough, those who witness those sins but say nothing are guilty too--remember how our troops would cause some town residents in Germany to walk through the death camps so they could see what was done in their name.

Thus what we have is a dualism. As an individual, one can be confronted by the Church and can face official discipline if one persists in sin. But if one belongs to the right group that makes up the system, then one will probably never be confronted by the Church even if that part of the system one belongs to is committing the same kind of sin which some individual Christians commit.

Why are the Reformed churches so vigilant regarding the sins of individuals but so lax about the sins of systems and institutions? The concern here for the Reformed churches whether they belong to the Two Kingdom or Transformationist models is to avoid suffering from missional drift. Churches from neither model want to be so caught up in lobbying for certain political causes that they forget to preach the Gospel. The only difference between the churches from these two different models is that the churches from the Two Kingdoms model will make fewer, if any, exceptions to this noninterventionist rule than churches from the Transformationist model. And note that the Transformationist model believes that the Church should only confront the government and system on rare occasions when it is crystal clear that the government and system are practicing injustice. 

The problem with the Church responding only to the exceptional wrongs practiced by the government and the system is that the bar for exceptional is relative and difficult to identify by those who are caught up in the system. Thus, many actions and policies that are clearly wrong will be tolerated because they won't be regarded as extreme enough.

There are logical problems with the reasoning being used by many from the Reformed traditions here. First, those from the Reformed tradition who follow the above rules seem to assume that to challenge specific policies or procedures, one must also offer substitute policies and procedures. Thus they don't challenge the current system in the first place. Here, people from the Reformed tradition might want to understand that one can criticize the system without being distracted by taking sides or lobbying for a another set of procedures. To critically look at whether sin is involved in the current way of doing things seems to be a very legitimate field of practical theology. And since Christians are always involved in the implementation of systems and procedures, the Church should always study what is involved in different system so as to advise it members.

Also, it is possible that those from the Reformed tradition believe that individual members of a group involved in the system are not responsible for the sins of the group if they are merely following the orders of those with authority. To that we want to remember the sense of responsibility our troops were introducing the German citizens as they forced them to walk through the death camps. Our accountability for the actions our groups practice is not directly related by the degree of injustice being performed. Rather, our accountability depends on both how much our actions contribute to a clear injustice as well as what we should have known.

We should note the latest example of lobbying for a cause taken by many from the Reformed tradition from both the Two Kingdom and Transformationist models. That action was to oppose marriage equality. So here, there was neither government nor system action being opposed. Rather, many from the Reformed tradition were trying to control the rights and actions of nonChristians who wished to participate in same-sex marriages. Thus, the Church was asking society and the government to restrict the individual actions of nonbelievers.

What should the Church speak out against? We could include the tremendous damage our society's way of life is inflicting on the environment. We could also speak against the growing wealth disparity and other economic injustices that come with the current economic system which we either enjoy or suffer from.  And we should study the 50 plus interventions our nation has leaped into, with some of those interfering with or even overthrowing democratic processes. With all that has been going on, why is it that the Reformed churches cannot authoritatively speak out against systemic sin except for the racism that still clings to the soul of our nation?

The Left has a disturbing answer for this question. It is because, according to the Left, the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to support the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. And it seems to me that the more the Reformed churches are concerned with preaching the Gospel, which includes preaching repentance from sin, the more these churches would be concerned with proving the Left wrong. 

On Having Hope And Being Hopeless

The Scriptures assure Christians that they have a living hope. That hope is Jesus who will return. And in this sense, everybody who belongs to Christ should be hopeful about the future--the distant future that is.

And in addition to that hope in the distant future is an assurance that God's sovereignty does limit the suffering we can experience today and in the near future. These two facts must be pillars in the lives of all who trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

But if we care about the world in the way that God loves the world,  then why is the state of this world hopeless and getting worse? There are two reasons for this hopelessness. First, most with wealth and power are insane. John Lennon made this point about our world leaders. If Lennon was alive today, he could most certain say this about both Obama and Putin as they flirt with conflict while being armed with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Those whose wealth is derived from financial conquest and who care not for the welfare of the victims of that conquest should be put into John Lennon's insane leaders category. This is Chris Hedges' point in talking about the cult of the self.



How can one come to any other conclusion when what drove the world into the most devastating and inhumane war in history is being practiced today? This obsession with conquest and dominance in a world, even though today's conquests are mostly financial, where interdependence and an ever advancing and adulterous technology makes all of us more vulnerable shows us to be, as the Scriptures say, like "a dog that returns to its vomit." (see Proverbs 26:11). From this we can easily say that 'never again' was never learned, as was reported by a previous blogpost on this blog (click here).

And though we might not be one of those who search for such economic conquests, we are complicit with such takeovers when we do not object but prefer to ride on the financial coattails of those who seek to conquer. These financial coattails anesthetize us so that we feel neither the pain of others as they lose out nor the destruction of the environment stemming from our exploitation and abuse of the earth and its resources.

For Conservative Christians, part of our complicity is due to the failure of our churches' leadership to properly engage culture. For when it comes to social justice issues, the range of reactions from Conservative Christians is to either not engage or to engage with the intent of advancing a strict Christian agenda.  Their involvement is measured by the charts below with the social justice grid chart being a modification of a new model introduced during Friday's blogpost review of Tim Keller's Center Church model (click here).

Social Justice Grid

Personal Morality Grid

The horizontal axis represents the degree to which a group want society to either be libertarian or controlling through the use of law. So what the two charts together illustrate is this, much of the Conservative Church, the Two Kingdoms and the Transformationists to be specific, invest more in trying to get society to restrict the personal moral behavior of individuals than they do in getting society to control groups or even itself when it comes to social justice issues. This is shown by how both the Two Kingdoms and Transformationists adherents are located to the right on the Personal Morality Grid compared to their positions on the Social Justice Grid. In last Friday's chart, which was named the Social Gospel Grid, the Transformationists were located solely in the second quadrant. But as I thought about it, certain parties in the Transformationist group or model as Keller calls it, do not always push society to legally require the just treatment of others. Instead, they often want society to take a more libertarian approach to social justice issues. Social justice issues could include employees being paid a living wage and having the right to belong to a union, or that everybody has access to affordable healthcare and housing. Social justice issues could also include protection of the environment. 

Part of this overall approach by the Transformationists is due to conservative political values and their apathy or antagonism toward social justice issues. And even where conservative political values do not come into play, there is a tendency to have some kind of objection to legally demanding that people be treated justly or that the environment be protected. Thus there is a mixed record in demanding justice by Transformationists.

In addition, some use the Bible to justify not being involved in the culture and social justice issues. I Timothy 2:2 is often used to justify Christians living "quiet lives" where we does not get involved in the bigger matters of the world. Those who interpret passages like I Timothy 2:2 this way are forgetting the changes in the historical context between when Paul wrote I Timothy and today. Unlike Paul's time, because of the Christianity's influence on Western Civilization, Christianity can be easily associated with some of the injustices practiced in our part of the world. Thus, it becomes mandatory for Christians, not just for the sake of having compassion on others, to be involved at least for the reputation of the Gospel.

The two charts together show that if you are going to sin as an individual, you'll hear about it from most Conservative Christians. But if you participate in the committing of group sins, you will enjoy quite a bit of impunity from Conservative righteous indignation. And with this being true on domestic social issues, how much more true is it with foreign issues such as with the use of sweatshop labor, the use of trade agreements that benefit our businesses while destroying the ability of some countries to feed themselves, or imperial foreign policies and the use of our military in interventions and drone warfare? For those Transformationists who are not prevented by conservative politics to care about these issues, one has to ask, where is your presence on the streets? Do you know that it is strongly desired by those who are both religious and Leftists because it helps confirm part of what they believe Christianity is suppose to be about?

Of course, demanding social justice has a price. It offends many, though not all, who have wealth and power. And such offenses could cost the Conservative Church members and money. In addition, because of an unthinking adherence to the Conservative label, some Conservative Christians have trouble distinguishing religious and political Conservatism so that an attack on one seems like an attack on both. The cost of demanding social justice for such conservatives can mean a very tearing and painful remaking of oneself--something I experienced when I became a political leftist.

So it is easier for the Conservative Church to stress the future hope we have because of our faith in Jesus because such provides an escape from having to make certain choices. The tragedy here is that our real hope is used to escape reality rather than to give one strength to face a present but temporary reality. And this desire to escape reality is based on combining a consumer culture to faith where one is more willing to live in comfort rather than bear the fruit of the Spirit in the face of injustice.

How tragically ironic it is that the hope of the world has become a reason for hopelessness in today's perilous times.

Looking For Goldilocks Between Heaven And Earth

There are 3 basic approaches Christians take in how they relate to the world. One way is to be too cold to the world and its suffering by refusing to be concerned and involved. Because of where I live, I call this an Amish approach. That is such Christians greatly reduce their contact with the world by focussing on their own spiritual life and Christian community. By distancing themselves from the world, they hope to remain more pure and thus stand as a shining example of what those in the world could become if it was to imitate them.

Another way Christians relate to the world is to be too hot and bothered for it and its concerns. There are a number of ways by which this can be done but what is a common theme is to overestimate how one is ushering in the Kingdom of God or other utopia by what one does in the world. Unfortunately for some, doing good and participating in the world becomes their faith and salvation. This kind of belief then replaces any faith in Christ a person may have had.

The purpose David VanDrunen's book, Living In God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision For Christianity And Culture (listen to an interview with the author here) is an attempt to find how a Christian can relate to the world without being too hot or too cold. What VanDrunen wants to do is to find a way that Christians can relate to the world that is just right. The part of the book that I wish to review here is the section that deals with politics.

VanDrunen believes that to find the right middle ground, the Christian must be able to find common causes with the non-Christian that neither puts the believer into compromising positions nor expects too much from the unbeliever. VanDrunen  uses two Biblical time periods to model how we should relate to the world. The first comes from the time of the Noahic Covenant while the second comes from the exile when the Jews had been carried off to Babylon. Note that during these times, God's people were living amongst those who weren't God's people and thus were living under a different set of laws than existed in Israel where everyone was to serve God. 

According to VanDrunen, Christians can engage politically as exiles in today's world provided they follow five principles. These principles are: we must recognize that the authority of all governments is established by God; we must acknowledge that those in government are responsible for maintaining order and practicing a civil righteousness so that we can "lead quiet and peaceful" lives; we are obligated to support those in government by praying for, paying taxes to, and obeying those in authority; we can, if we so choose, participate in the political process by holding office as a civil authority; and, we realize that the government's authority is limited so that it cannot intrude on other cultural institutions such as the family unit. We also should note that we are obligated to disobey the government only when it demands that we break any of God's commandments.

VanDrunen continues by saying that outside of these five principles, we have options rather than obligations. That is that we can choose to support certain causes, candidates, and political parties without either being obligated to choose what other Christians have chosen or allowed to demand that others follow our lead.

Is there anything earth-shatteringly wrong in what is written here? The answer is no, though VanDrunen's Two Kingdom (2k) approach has been highly criticized by some who want Christians to carry out a more "transformational" role in the world. But at the same time, two observations must be made. First, VanDrunen's view of how Christians should participate with nonbelievers as exiles relies on some archaic world views. Second, the definition of what is a "quiet and peaceful" is not well-defined and thus its meaning is assumed by each individual who reads VanDrunen's book.

The obsolete world views that VanDrunen's 2K approach employs here governs how we are to relate to our elected officials. Here, we are for the most part called to be a passive consumer of the government.  A passive consumer here is one who, in submitting to and praying for the government in order to enjoy the government's benefits, is held accountable by the government but never returns the favor. That, with the previously mentioned caveat, the government can demand that we follow its standard of what is just but, outside of voting, we are not obliged to hold the government accountable to do what we think is right. And though some might choose to go the extra mile and speak out, this action is a preference and is thus non-binding on Christians if it is allowed at all.

However, two changes in the modern world have forever altered our, Christian and non-Christian, relationship with our respective governments. The first game changing difference consists of the advancements in communications technology. These improvements allow more and more people who are in need to cross our way just as the man who was beaten came in the way of the Good Samaritan. Remember that, according to Jesus, what obligated the Good Samaritan to help the man who was robbed and beaten was awareness of the man's situation. We must ask what does an ever increasing knowledge of need do to our carrying out of Jesus's command to love our neighbor?

And not only does an ever advancing technology widen our vision of a world in need, it extends our reach. So not only can we see people from farther away than ever before, we can, because of the same technology, reach out and touch them. For example, we have access to a plethora of aid agencies that can go where we personally cannot go because of technology. All we need to do is write these agencies a check and off they go.

But another change in the modern world that changes our relationship with our government is the proliferation of democracy. Democracy causes us to be actors in our government rather than just recipients of its actions. This is because democracy allows us to choose our leaders. And because we choose our leaders, we become responsible for their decisions in ways that we were not responsible before.

How can we carry out our responsibility for our leaders' decisions? The most obvious answer is that we can vote for new leaders. However, all too often blind loyalty to and prejudice against political labels limits for whom we will vote. The result is that we enable a government that is either inept or unjust by blindly voting.

But democracy is made up of more than just voting every x number of years. Some of the greatest achievements made by democratic states occurred because of activism. People protested, went on strike, boycotted the products of certain businesses, and practiced civil disobedience to change the practices of businesses and the laws of the governments. And occasionally, activism has chosen leaders. Democracy gives people more say and power over their government.

So as we see how both an advancing technology and the practice of democracy together gives us more awareness of suffering and more power to relieve it, are Christians now responsible for resisting their government when their government sins against others? Are we now responsible for responding to suffering and oppression by challenging those in power to practice compassion and justice? My guess is that VanDrunen would say that resisting or challenging the government to relieve the unjust suffering of others would be regarded as a preference or option to be determined by each individual's conscience. So, should we challenge VanDrunen here? Should we ask him if greater awareness and opportunities also brings more obligations and responsibilities?

But as we continue, we see something else. We see this in the absence of the definition of living a "quiet and peaceful" life. If we interpret living a "quiet and peaceful" life as being free to take care of those who are in our immediate circle of friends and family, we see a continuing theme from what VanDrunen sees in our relationship with the government. That is just as VanDrunen says we are to obey the government except when it commands us to sin, living the "quiet and peaceful" life places a similar stress on the self. This emphasis on the self tells us to disobey the government only when we think we are commanded to sin and to expect the government to allow us to seek our own space of tranquility. 

Here, we should add to VanDrunen's approach that there are other icebergs floating nearby in addition to volatile circumstances and persecution. Francis Schaeffer has warned us about one of those icebergs when he saw American Christians being too concerned about their personal peace and prosperity. Schaeffer, who merits much criticism in some of his other teachings, correctly criticized American Christians for seeking a self-centered life of comfort. We should note that those who have yielded to a life full of selfishness and self-centeredness face some of the most severe judgments anyone can receive. In addition, when people who claim to follow God live this way, they cause God to be cursed (Romans 2:8ff).

Can we say for sure that VanDrunen is encouraging us to pursue the personal peace and prosperity that Schaeffer warned against? No, but neither can we say that he discourages such a pursuit. For, as far as I can tell, VanDrunen's ambiguity allows each reader to project their own desires onto what the Bible calls a "quiet and peaceful" life.

VanDrunen does make some valid points in this book. Though for some, his book will function as a "Mother May I" permission for Christians to participate with non-Christians on joint cultural ventures, his warning that these ventures can never bring the Kingdom of God is an important reminder to activists like myself. At the same time, some 2K proponents mistakenly see any effort to improve life by changing the system as an attempt to bring a long await utopia to earth. Activists like myself who are working for a better world have no delusions regarding our capabilities. We know that all we can do is to work more than enough hours to simply improve on what our predecessors have done. And we should note that most improvements take place in small increments. This makes being an activist like being a soccer or hockey player who has to put in so much effort and work in order for his or her team to score one or two goals.

But VanDrunen aside, each of us American Christians must ask ourselves if our working definitions for the two kingdoms in which we must participate come from God's Word and His commands to love Him and our neighbor or from our desire to maintain our current level of spiritual and physical comfort. For if our thinking is dictated by the latter, we misrepresent God's Word and possibly deceive ourselves regarding our relationship with God. 

This letting personal comfort be the key to interpreting the Bible cuts across the three previously mentioned Christian approaches to reconciling our earthly and heavenly connections. Some who withdraw from the world as well as others who think they can usher in the Kingdom of God could be holding to their beliefs because they cannot tolerate being connected to or even be with those who are different. So they believe that the Bible tells them to either withdraw or make others conform.

VanDrunen's 2K model is a fallible but useful tool to correct those who are either too cold to or too hot toward the world. It rightly tells us about the limits of what can be done. These limits are important to constantly remember lest we get caught up with ourselves or a particular cause. But, it could say more about and recognize the political implications that an ever advancing technology and democratization have on how the second great commandment to love our neighbor must be applied.