The Two Kingdoms: A Guide for the Perplexed

Davenant Guides

by W. Bradford Littlejohn

What does it mean to live as citizens of this world and of the world-to-come? How can we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s? In recent years, fresh controversy has erupted over these age-old questions, and especially over the meaning and relevance of the Reformation’s “two-kingdoms” doctrine. At stake in such debates is not simply the shape of Christian politics, but the meaning of the church, the nature of human and divine authority, and the scope of Christian discipleship.

In this concise guide, Reformation scholar and Christian ethicist Bradford Littlejohn first sketches the history of the doctrine and clears away common misunderstandings. He then shows that the two-kingdoms doctrine can offer a valuable framework for thinking about pastoring, politics, and even financial stewardship.

Genres: Theology, Politics, Nonfiction, Christianity, Christian, Religion, Christian Living

120 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 22, 2017

Reviews

[Peter Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent introduction to a proper understanding of the two kingdoms doctrine. The doctrine is hard to understand. Littlejohn does a good job explaining it and uses some examples. Perhaps most helpful was he refuted the idea that the two kingdoms are the church and state or the church and everything else. The church herself has a foot in both kingdoms.

I doubt he and I would agree on the practical outworking of the doctrine. But that is part of the point. There is some room for disagreement on the particulars.

Also I would be a bit more a biblicist than he is, though I have come around to giving natural law and reason its proper place.

His point about the two kingdoms, properly applied, destroying idolatry was excellent.

Finally, much of the discussion, at least in the church, will center on what is commanded in Scripture and what is adiaphora. We all agree there are places of prudence and wisdom where the church must govern, but are not commanded by Scripture. The great debate centers on what those places are.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally helpful. As a "guide for the perplexed" it really could do with a very, very explicit statement of THIS version of the R2K position, perhaps charting and comparing veru simply the precise differences between the Reformers, the neo-calvinists and VanDrunnen R2Kers.
It is really quite difficult to pick this out from the first 3 chapters one's self.
Otherwise, it's a useful addition to the debate.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a guide for the perplexed, this book failed on that count. Here is a supposedly clarifying passage:

Human life is not a two-dimensional map onto which the two kingdoms are drawn as a dividing line between spheres of jurisdiction; it is rather a three-dimensional reality of which the whole horizontal dimension is coterminous with the temporal kingdom, with the spiritual kingdom forming the third dimension—the vertical God-ward relation which animates all the rest.

I’m not sure who this was written for, but I wasn’t able to glean much help from it.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A call to a return to natural law and wisdom in Christian politics. I might not agree with every point, but the author has the right idea.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brief helpful summary and application of a historic position on the distinction and role of the spiritual and physical kingdoms.

This is a very brief book and with the space it devotes to the history and application of the topic it doesn't have room for a rock solid argument for the truth of its position, however it is nonetheless a useful summary of a balanced position on these matters.

2nd Read: This book is actually really really good for its size and I highly recommend it; understanding the true divide between the spiritual and physical kingdoms (it's NOT church vs state) is core to so many issues, from confronting idolatry and proclaiming Christ in the public square to rightly deploying the world's wisdom in e.g. managing church finances.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Two Kingdoms: A Guide for the Perplexed is not merely an introduction to Reformation Two Kingdoms thought but also a corrective of the so-called “Reformed Two Kingdoms” position espoused by David VanDrunen, among others. W. Bradford Littlejohn is explicitly arguing that VanDrunen position is not the historic two kingdoms view. In the book’s eight chapters (6 body), Littlejohn seeks to establish the historical position (chs. 2-3) and unpack some of its contributions (chs. 4-7).

Summary

According to Littlejohn, the two kingdoms doctrine from Luther to Hooker cannot be equated with a church and state distinction; instead, it is an internal-external, visible-invisible distinction. It is analogous to the distinction between justification and sanctification (13-14), which is the legal reality worked out externally, though with no perfect correspondence in this life. The two kingdoms are “two ways in which the kingship of Christ made itself felt in the life of each and every believer” (7-8). From Zwingli, Littlejohn suggests that “kingdom” is better termed “two governments” or “realms” (9). He states, “Human life is not a two-dimensional map onto which the two kingdoms are drawn as a dividing line between spheres of jurisdiction; it is rather a three-dimensional reality of which the whole horizontal dimension is coterminous with the temporal kingdom, with the spiritual kingdom forming the third dimension—the vertical God-ward relation which intimates all the rest” (9). Thus, we are simultaneously and at all times “free lords and dutiful servants” (10), with a foot in both kingdoms. It is shorthand “for the magisterial Protestant answer to [the question, what it means to live as a Christian in the world]” (10).

For Luther, the two kingdoms were “a comprehensive framework on which he hangs his understanding of God, man, and society, predicated on the reformer’s basic distinction between man as he is coram Deo and coram hominibus” [i.e. before God and before man] (14). As humans are both justified and being sanctified—simultaneously sinners and righteous—so the church is both invisible, “in its hidden identity before God,” and visible in its “outward ministries” (16). This is significant because Christian liberty applied to the invisible reality, not the outward (16). (For a great article on this, see Wyatt Graham’s here.) There was just a realm of activities, those things indifferent, on which Scripture “offered no direct or perpetually binding command,” which was left up to discretion (16). On the other hand, because the civil magistrate was God’s agent in the temporal sphere, they “could wield authority and demand obedience in ecclesiastical adiaphora—questions of outward order, polity, and to some extent liturgy” (17). However, the magistrate, disassociated as it was from the sacral sphere, could not make any claims on conscience, and its authority was limited to the adiaphora (17). Littlejohn observes continuity between Luther and Reformed theology, though the latter relied more heavily on mosaic law. He sees in Calvin, Bucer, and others a restriction of adiaphora, “since those matters determined by Scripture could not really be considered indifferent, and the role of ministers, as teachers of Scripture, expanded to include the oversight and censure of morals” (22). Sanctification was not indifferent to salvation.

For Calvin, like Luther, the two kingdoms are internal and external, the forum of conscience and the external forum (25). “Christian liberty … is fundamentally soteriological, the proclamation of the freedom of the believer’s conscience from the bondage of external works” (26). A particularly sticky area was the topic of church discipline, which seemed to straddle the border of both kingdoms, with some reformers welcoming Civil involvement and others restricting it to the church (32-33). However, for Calvin and Luther, whatever care the State had for the church was expressed on the basis of “natural equity, not divine law” (33); “The exercise of human authority, whether in church and state, remained—although tenuously—an exercise of prudence and charity in the government of things indifferent, not the voice of God” (33). In Puritan Presbyterianism, Littlejohn sees a move towards a more institutional two kingdoms view: “If the Word of God has strictly required a particular system of church government, then implementation of it is binding on conscience and such government no longer falls within the realm of prudence that characterized the Reformer’s understanding of the civil kingdom” (33). Presbyterianism thus “rolled back key gains of the Reformation,” but Richard Hooker replied in defence of Christian liberty (37). Hooker, in the line of Thomism, “classifies human law, which governs all ‘politique societies,’ as the product of rational discernment of the natural law” (40). Some of this “human law” is in Scripture; the supernatural, divine law “is not to be understood as everything in Scripture… but rather as that which is supernatural in respect of its end. In other words, the supernatural law is that which directs us to our end of union with God of which sin has made us utterly incapable, it establishes the way of salvation; in short, it governs the spiritual kingdom” (40). The human law sated in Scripture is binding “by virtue of creation, not by virtue of Scripture” (41). In this way, the natural law found in Scripture is instructive for us, who are in a different position than those for whom it originally applied; “we are free to use reason, illuminated by attention to Scriptural principles and precedents, to do otherwise” (41). As a political society, the church is to be governed by human law (42). In conclusion, he writes “the most important thing to be said in defense of the contemporary relevance of the two-kingdoms doctrine is that it is true, and truth must always be proclaimed” (103).

Evaluation

Littlejohn’s study is rich with insight into Reformation thought and its influence on Christian thought until today. The historical dimensions of his study are a helpful corrective to the historical case for the Reformed 2 Kingdoms being made today. However, he far is far less persuasive in the normative claim, namely, that the Reformation two kingdoms doctrine is true. Indeed, VanDrunen admirably makes a case for his position from Scripture, though I judge his argument unconvincing. Despite proclaiming the truth of the Reformation two kingdoms position, Littlejohn never argues for its scriptural truthfulness. He assumes without evidence that Hooker’s two kingdoms doctrine is the truth, dismissing the Presbyterian arguments (rooted in Scripture) pejoratively (37) and presenting a teleology with Hooker’s theology as its rightful culmination (46). I, for one, find the non-conformist arguments far stronger than Hooker’s political theology. Furthermore, there have been significant challenges raised against the concept of natural law to assume without argument that it is true and has a proper function in Christian political theology. The Bibliology of Hooker, where Scripture is part human law and part divine law, is indefensible from the Bible itself; without this solution to the problems of early two kingdoms teaching, it may be that the Presbyterian evolution was more accurate than Hooker’s. For its historical insight in the modern discussion, this short volume is indispensable. As a defence of a valid alternative to the contemporary debates over public theology, it certainly has some insights but is neither persuasive nor compelling.

[Daniel Bouchoc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Littlejohn gives a brief history of the development of two kingdoms doctrine through the reformation (if you are hoping for any Augustinian thought you will get one sentence) and the implications for today. He doesn't leave the reader with anything concrete except for demonstrating the complexities and balance of living in the temporal kingdom while being part of the inward kingdom by faith. A significant contribution seems to be that Littlejohn pushes back against the idea that the two kingdoms are neatly divided. Rather, there is a horizontal and vertical aspect to all of life—3 dimensional.

I really enjoyed this. It is short and informative. It was a difficult read for being a "guide," and if you don't know latin, well, just skip all that stuff.

Littlejohn introduced me to some categories:
- The church as institution is part of the temporal/horizontal kingdom that points to the inward/spiritual kingdom as a sign/sacrament and not as the thing itself (46, 68). The institutional church and spiritual kingdom are not the same (96)
- Civil/church law does and should govern conduct but not conscience—in keeping with the Reformation (16).
- The temporal kingdom preserves the created order in contrast to bringing in the new creation (51). Thus you cannot place undue eschatological burden on the visible church (54).

[Logan Thune · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this little book was good and helpful in some areas, there were also parts that didn’t seem to get an even-handed treatment from Littlejohn.

You could tell which views he framed in the best of light (i.e., he’s a big fan of Richard Hooker) and which views he did not (e.g., Puritans, neo-Kuyperians, and theonomists, etc). Though, I largely agree with his critique of R2K.

There was also an interesting tempering of expectations throughout, and a selective application of the Bible when it supported certain views (i.e., parts of chapter VII). But who gets to decide when that’s allowed and when it isn’t? We are all theonomists when we want to be.

I’d consider myself some flavor of a 2K advocate, and while this is a good overview of the theory, I’d find myself framing some things differently than Littlejohn (e.g., the relationship between natural and special revelation). But I digress….

(Also was distracted by 3-4 typos/errors in my copy.)

[Rohan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A neat summary of a topic I haven't thought much about. Christian engagement with the state isn't separatist or triumphalist, but like in all things "diagonalised" (to use a different term).

"Two kingdoms" ought not serve to neatly divvy up the various elements of the Christian life into one or another sphere, but rather ... as two different ways of talking about the same elements ... We are at the same time free lords and dutiful servants, ... set free by grace and under the laws (natural and civil) that regulate our lives with one another.

[Brian]

I'm still the Davenant gopher, so I got to read this. If you read Brad Littlejohn's articles, there is a lot of interesting stuff here that he added on pastors, economics, and politics. If you have not read his articles, you still might enjoy this. It's a lucid and well-written book, geared towards pastors and theologians, though not necessarily towards the average layman. Still, I want to popularize this stuff, since the ideas are very powerful and explain a lot of the problems in our current cultural crisis. More to come ...

[Cullen Kenneth · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The language of “the two kingdoms” ought not serve to neatly divvy up the various elements of
the Christian life into one or another sphere, but rather, often, ought to be viewed as two different ways of talking about the same elements.”

[Deb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding look at 2K theology from the historical reformed perspective.

[Jae H Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very helpful introduction to the two kingdoms doctrine of the magisterial Reformation and a corrective to the R2K theology of VanDrunen et al.

[Nathan]

short, useful book. good reminder brad isn’t “that” kind of R2K

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first chapter was a little bit dense and a trifle confusing, but after that this was a really clear and helpful book.

[StephenM · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short book that likely won't answer all of your questions. It certainly doesn't explain everything about how the church and civil government are to relate to each other. But then, its point is that the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms was not originally designed to explain such things, because the two kingdoms of Christ referred to are not "Church" and "State" but the inner world of the heart and mind and the outer world of body and action. This is an important historical point to make, because the term has been used very differently in recent years than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Littlejohn's book is best in its first half while it's summarizing and untangling the Reformation-era doctrines and debates (specifically, the teachings of Luther, Calvin, and Hooker). It's less helpful in the second half when it comes to applying this doctrinal distinction to debates today--which may be why so many shift the meaning in the first place. But what I found so helpful was the way it opened up the wisdom of the Reformed political tradition and encouraged its use. We don't have to stop at the Two Kingdoms, we can draw on so many more foundational ideas from the past: Natural Law as the basis of human positive law, Just War theory, the doctrine of the lesser magistrates when it comes to rebellion, the duties of the Christian magistrate, the centrality of Prudence as a political virtue, covenants and federalism, etc.

[Simon O'Mahony · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book, which is a compilation of an article and a series of blog posts, sets out to provide an introduction to Two Kingdoms theology. However, in actuality it reads more like a polemic against Dr. Vandrunen's Two Kingdom's theology.

In my opinion, the book failed to meet both its stated goal and its attempted goal.

[Jeremy]

Review here. Critique here. A revised edition is being discussed.

[Nathaniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It feels strange to give five stars to a book that is really meant to be a rather short, unambitious, popular-ish level introduction but wow here we are.

[Hobart · Rating 4 out of 5]

★ ★ ★ 1/2 (rounded up)
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---

We are simul justus et peccator, at the same time free lords and dutiful servants, at the same time alive with Christ in the heavenly places and toiling in murky paths here below, and even as we enjoy the liberty of a conscience set free by grace, we live under the laws (natural and civil) that regulate our lives with one another as human creatures. To confuse these two rules is to risk libertinism or legalism, triumphalism or despair.

WHAT'S THE TWO KINGDOMS ABOUT?
The Publisher describes it better than I could:

What does it mean to say Christ reigns in two kingdoms?

What does it mean to live as citizens of this world and of the world-to-come? How can we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s? In recent years, fresh controversy has erupted over these age-old questions, and especially over the meaning and relevance of the Reformation’s “two-kingdoms” doctrine. At stake in such debates is not simply the shape of Christian politics, but the meaning of the church, the nature of human and divine authority, and the scope of Christian discipleship.

In this concise guide, Reformation scholar and Christian ethicist Bradford Littlejohn first sketches the history of the doctrine and clears away common misunderstandings. He then shows that the two-kingdoms doctrine can offer a valuable framework for thinking about pastoring, politics, and even financial stewardship.

Littlejohn gives us three chapters tracing the development of the concept starting with Luther and going through the early seventeenth century, looking at the "implications for political theology, ecclesiology, and Christian life."

Then he offers "a creative appropriation of the doctrine today in the three key spheres of church, state, and marketplace, suggesting how it can shed fresh light on seemingly sterile disputes over how to live out the lordship of Christ in the 21st century."

Throughout this, he will draw distinctions from his view of the Two Kingdoms to the "R2K" views (defined as "radical Two Kingdoms" or "Reformed Two Kingdoms", depending who you ask) as well as a neo-Calvinist view, a Theonomistic view, or some others.

A POSITIVE AND A NEGATIVE
This is an introductory volume—and one that is only 120 pages long. So we're only going to get a cursory look at all these ideas, ideas that are inherently complex just from a positive point of view—as he also offers critiques as well, that really doesn't give Littlejohn a lot of time for explanation or depth.

This is a strength because he gives you a quick lay of the land, a look at Two Kingdom theology from 10,000 feet.

But it's a weakness because that's all we get—there aren't even a plethora of footnotes. So we get assertion after assertion—but not a lot of reason to do more than take his word for it. It's hard to swallow when he says something along the lines of, "I'm right about what Calvin said, unlike this other guy." I don't think he slips into the fallacy of ipse dixit, but he can see it from his front porch.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT THE TWO KINGDOMS?

The two- kingdoms doctrine was a rebuke to our eagerness to call Christ down from heaven, seeing his hand in our own works and hearing his voice in our own words. It was an eschatological reminder that we live in a time between the times of Christ’s coming, that regardless of our duty to witness to the reign of the Son of Man, that reign remains hidden behind the “masks” that God has ordained to do his will in history.

I have, honestly, stayed as far away as I could from the topics of Christianity and politics/political theory/etc. for several years now. And really have only looked at it a little now because of some prodding by others, most of whom strongly recommended this book and cite it often.

Despite my misgivings (see above) about Littlejohn not really proving his assertions, I did find this helpful for giving a lay of the land, for drawing lines between his view and the R2K proponents (and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree he's closer to the first few generations of Protestants than the R2Kers are).

I found a lot of wisdom in the chapters about the State and Market, and found the chapter "Two Kingdoms in The Church" to be provocative.

As with any good introduction, I was left with more questions than answers—but I think I know the directions to look for some of those answers. I do wish the book was 80 pages or so longer—it still would've been able to stick to its foundational nature but it could've put a little meat the bones to help with some of those details.

I recommend this with some caveats, just know that when you're only getting the beginning of an idea about the Two Kingdoms.

[Timothy Klob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bradford Littlejohn holds a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh and currently serves as a Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center for the Davenant Institute. Founded in 2013, the Davenant Institute is an organization focused on the academic and practical implications of Protestant theology, philosophy, and ethics. The Two Kingdoms is a contribution by Littlejohn to the Davenant Guides series, a series of short introductory treatments of issues in philosophy and theology from the historic traditional Protestant perspective.
Summary and Review

At the outset of The Two Kingdoms, Littlejohn raises the question as to how we as Christians should address the relationship between the private and public dimensions of faith in light in our modern secularized age. In response, and throughout this book, he attempts to contrast the “Reformed two-kingdoms” doctrine (hereinafter “R2K”) espoused by various modern Reformed and evangelical proponents with what he contends is a broader and more original two-kingdoms doctrine drawn from the magisterial Protestant tradition (1-6).

Littlejohn states that the primary focus of the modern R2K doctrine is “a desire to re-emphasize the centrality of the Church in the Christian life, a suspicion of over-reaching claims for biblical authority and applicability, a healthy cynicism about the ability to realize gospel norms in temporal structures, and stress on the wide areas of commonality between believers and unbelievers (5).” He offers examples of how the R2K doctrine has impacted Reformed (and Reformed-adjacent) evangelical churches in our day and how this movement poses risks to historic Protestantism. In contrast to the R2K movement, Littlejohn contends that the “original Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine” offers “a faith that is thoroughly public without being either triumphalistic in the civil sphere or oppressive in the ecclesiastical sphere (6-7).”

In the first four chapters, Littlejohn attempts to define both what the Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine is versus what it is not, and he concludes that the two-kingdoms doctrine was “the Reformation’s rebuke to idolatry (48).” In these chapters Littlejohn outlines and discusses the development of the Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine and its application throughout church history as espoused and implemented by various key Protestant reformers through their respective traditions. These reformers include Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Richard Hooker, and others including those within the Anabaptist and Puritan traditions. Littlejohn’s primary focus in this chronology, however, is with Luther, Calvin, and Hooker, and with their application of this doctrine through their respective Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican branches of Protestantism.

Littlejohn covers the evolution of the Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine by first describing how Luther’s desire to keep the political sphere as free from political involvement as possible ultimately “laid the foundations for modern liberal order (12-13).” In drawing this conclusion, he notes how Luther’s theme of “twoness” draws from the works of Augustine and other early and medieval theologians (12-15). He then moves on to discuss how Zwingli’s Zurich, in contrast, was “more willing to look to the Old Testament for guidance” in terms of the relationship between governance of religious and political life (19-20). Following his discussion of Zwingli, Littlejohn discusses how Calvin’s Geneva further developed the two-kingdoms doctrine into a system with a “clear distinction between civil and ecclesiastical rule (32).”

Through his discussion of the various attempts by these key reformers to balance the competing interests of the spiritual and temporal realms, Littlejohn refers consistently to their need to determine those things that were to be considered adiaphora (“indifferent to salvation”) and more specifically what issues should be best handled through church government and discipline versus those that were better suited for disposition by civil magistrates (22-23, 27, 41). In addressing this ongoing source of tension, Littlejohn turns to the English theologian Richard Hooker, who he contends addressed this problem through his belief that “the divine law of Scripture contains not merely the supernatural law, but restates much of the content of natural law, as well as offering by example many human applications of natural law (40-41).”

Littlejohn does a commendable job in setting forth the impact of the Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine on matters of personal and political importance for modern Christians in a concise and readable fashion. While this book provides a thorough discussion and analysis of the development and application of the Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine, however, a clear and concise definition of the two-kingdoms doctrine from the outset would have helped focus my reading of the text. This definition, along with other key definitions for frequently used terms such as R2K and adiaphora, could be included in an appendix if not otherwise desired for inclusion in the body of the text itself. Of course, given the development of the two-kingdoms doctrine over the course of several centuries, more than one definition may be required here for the two-kingdoms doctrine with nuanced definitions for the doctrine as set forth by key reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Hooker, respectively.

In the next three chapters, Littlejohn attempts to discuss the application of the Protestant two-kingdoms doctrine to the church, the state, and the marketplace. He begins his discussion on the church by contending that while ministers may face difficulties drawing the dividing line between “spiritual” and “civil” areas of life, these two areas are always to some degree “distinct” from one another (59). Littlejohn addresses the impact of the two-kingdoms doctrine on the church by addressing church discipline where he states that it is “a civil kingdom proceeding that relies on a certain kind of temporal authority (62).” He then proceeds to discuss what he terms the dangers of “overzealous ecumenism” and the potential to transform the desire for Christian unity, particularly organizational unity, into an idol in its own right (62-64).

I found Littlejohn’s discussion on church discipline insightful, although it could have been explored in more detail and with further practical application, both with respect to discipline of individuals as well as discipline and accountability at higher ecclesiastical levels within the church. Further elaboration on the interplay between the roles of ecclesiastical discipline and the overlapping roles of civil authority in matters involving church discipline would also be helpful here, as in cases involving disputes over church property or funds where both civil and ecclesiastical rules apply. Along these same lines, and particularly with respect to non-hierarchical evangelical churches, analysis of how the two-kingdoms approach should inform cases where church leaders are legally required or morally obligated to report adult clergy sexual abuse and other criminal matters, would be helpful here as well.

Littlejohn’s discussion of the application of the two-kingdoms doctrine to matters involving the relationship between church and state sets forth several principles that can be applied by the church in taking part in the “temporal kingdom” of politics (72-73). In doing this, he recognizes the balancing act needed to address the inherent “eschatological tension” required to faithfully operate within these competing spheres (72-74). His analysis here acknowledges the fact that “earthly politics” cannot obtain or sustain a sense of “ultimacy” and sums up the dangers of attempting to do so as follows: “Once religious faith ebbs in a people, political messianism and its evil twin, political apocalypticism, begin to flourish (86).” More discussion along these lines, and particularly with respect to the involvement and co-opting of evangelicals by political leaders and partisan interests over the past five decades, would also be helpful here.

Littlejohn then moves to address the application of the two-kingdoms doctrine to the marketplace, warning of the dangers of idolatry with respect to money and the dangers of “Christo-capitalism” on a societal scale where “the dynamic force of the market becomes the engine of God’s redemptive purposes in history (91).” In addition to addressing these concerns on a broader scale, Littlejohn also provides some practical guidance for Christians on how to view their finances through an “ethic of active love that seeks the good of others” based on the guidance set forth in Luther’s Small Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism (98-99). I found this chapter to offer the most practical advice and guidance for individual Christians on how to apply the two-kingdoms doctrine to personal life and practice. His concluding comment in this discussion relating scripture to personal practice here is particularly useful where he states that “leaving some money on the table – or some grain at the corners of the fields – is exactly how God told Israel to practice their charity (99).”

As noted at the outset, I found The Two Kingdoms to be informative, challenging, and insightful. On a personal note, as both a practicing attorney and as a Christian, this is the type of book I wish had been assigned for my introductory law school classes. Regardless of one’s profession, or one’s role as either clergy or laity within the church, this book is a valuable resource and one that I would recommend to anyone seeking a clearer understanding of the role of natural law in balancing the tension between the competing interests of God and Caesar.

[Burkean Conservative · Rating 4 out of 5]

I approached this book as a beginner who knows absolutely nothing about two-kingdom theology, other than surface-level controversies.

In the first chapter, Dr. Bradford Littlejohn distinguishes between what he sees as "Reformed/radical Two-Kingdoms" (R2K) propagated by the Escondido theologians (VanDrunnen, Horton, Scott Clark, Hart, et al) and the classic Protestant conception of two-kingdoms, which he tries to layout in this book. He also distinguishes his view from the theonomists, neo-Calvinists (Kuyperians), and broader evangelicals.

The two kingdoms are not church and state, but rather internal and external.

the basic distinction between the two kingdoms is internal and external, both come into play at every point of the Christian life, but in different ways.

Human life is not a two-dimensional map onto which the two kingdoms are drawn as a dividing line between spheres of jurisdiction; it is rather a three-dimensional reality of which the whole horizontal dimension is coterminous with the temporal kingdom, with the spiritual kingdom forming the third dimension—the vertical God-ward relation which animates all the rest.

The two kingdoms are more like two lines that run throughout the Christian life. So the spiritual kingdom includes the spiritual aspect of the state and the temporal aspect of the church comes under the temporal kingdom.

Chapter 2 surveys the two-kingdom theology of the reformers; Luther, the early Reformed tradition of Zwingli and Bucer and Calvin. The important concept in two-kingdom theology; Christian liberty and adiaphora is discussed.

The spiritual government is that by which Christ rules inwardly in the conscience by his Word and Spirit, the realm of grace; the temporal government (weltliche Regimente) is that by which Christ governs all external human affairs by law, in which he works not directly and immediately, but through the larvae, “masks,” of earthly governors and institutions. Only the elect experience the former; the latter they share in common with the unregenerate.

Chapter 3 deals with church discipline and also Richard Hooker's effort to save two-kingdom theology from degenerating into a form of biblicism where there's a verse for everything.

...although most Genevan lay-elders were magistrates on the City Council, Calvin insisted that they exercised church discipline only in their role as church officers rather than civil officers. After all, although the civil polity was rightly concerned, in Calvin’s eyes, with godly religious practice as well as with public morality and order, there was a difference between sins and crimes, and between what church discipline and civil justice aimed to achieve.

Hooker deserves credit for freeing Christian consciences from the tyranny of Scripture conceived as an exhaustive law-book, desacralizing human authority in both church and state, and resisting the Puritan tendency to immanentize Christ’s eschatological rule in the visible church.

Chapter 4 looks at the contributions of two-kingdom theology.

...the two-kingdoms theory de-sacralized, or more properly, de-totalized, the State and the exercise of civil authority. Political authority was still ordained by God, accountable to God, and indeed redeemed in Christ, to be sure, and to this extent, could be said to mediate his rule. However, this rule of God’s “left hand” was radically distinct from His proper work of redemption and oversaw matters of temporary and limited significance; civil authorities were responsible to preserve the created order, not to bring in the new creation. This teaching set a decisive limit to the scope of civil authority, or the sorts of demands it could make.

Chapter 5, 6, 7 applies two-kingdom theology in the church, state and the market (economics).

But is this all that Christianity has to say to politics—that is must safeguard the order which God has built into the world and in some way acknowledge its Creator? Many two-kingdoms thinkers seem to think so, emphasizing the contrast of “creation” and “redemption” as the division between the two kingdoms, and warning that redemption has nothing to do with the temporal kingdom or the task of politics. However, this seems to forget that “redeem” is a transitive verb, and Scripture is quite clear that the object of this redemption is not merely the souls of believers, but the whole created order (Rom. 8:19–22).

To analyse the veracity of Dr. Littlejohn's interpretation of two-kingdoms as opposed to that of Escondido theologians is not the end towards which this review is aiming, but rather to analyse the clarity and coherence of Dr.Littlejohn's two-kingdom theology. And to that end, the work served the purpose of introducing the reader to a consistent view of the two kingdoms. The book refrains from being highly polemical and is a good and cogent exposition of two-kingdom theology.

[Tim Sanduleac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful.

Deservedly called “A Guide for the Perplexed”, Littlejohn attempts to clear up much of the modern confusion on the Protestant doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. The author has three main misconceptions in view: the radical two-kingdoms view (“R2K”), the neo-calvinist transformationalist view, and the mainstream evangelical view.

The main argument here is that the Two Kingdoms distinction is not mainly an institutional divide (whether between church and state, church and culture, or something else), but rather a distinction between the temporal (visible) and the eschatological (invisible) kingdom. Christ’s provision of the created order cannot be fully separated from his redemptive work, as they both have the same telos. It follows, then, that the institutional (visible) church is part of the temporal kingdom, and must function as such, in the context of culture, civil magistrates and fallen humanity. How does the church execute its role, as it appears to have a foot in both kingdoms? That is what the author aims to answer.

The historical survey, tracing the doctrine in the theology of Luther, Calvin, and Hooker, is dense, despite its short length. The chapter on Hooker and his disagreements with the Puritans was especially provocative to me as a Presbyterian, who would side strongly with the Puritans on some issues brought up in the discussion. Nevertheless, it provides a lot of food for thought for the discerning reader.

The second half briefly deals with applying the doctrine to church, state and economics, seeking to revive the centuries-old wisdom for our modern Western context. Chapter 5 contains a particularly phenomenal discussion on ecumenism in light of the two kingdoms.

I don’t know of any other book that can bring as much light to someone new to the discussion in such few pages, and I am therefore grateful that a book of this length and precision exists.


“No, for the Reformers, two-kingdoms doctrine was not primarily about church and state, or even necessarily political theology more broadly construed… but about two ways in which the kingship of Christ made itself felt in the life of each and every believer”

[David Goetz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great primer on the historic Protestant doctrine of the two kingdoms. Littlejohn (whose name, yes, is redolent of Robin Hood) capably and clearly shows what Luther, Calvin, and Hooker (whom he continues to interpret--rightly, I think--as a magisterial Reformer) meant by the doctrine of the two kingdoms and then describes what the doctrine might mean for our understanding of the Church, of politics and political engagement, and of the market. Basically, the two kingdoms are the "temporal kingdom" (which he prefers to "civil kingdom" or similar terms) and the "spiritual kingdom." Christ is King over both (contra the idea that only the Church is the kingdom of Christ, or that the world comes under Christ only according to his divinity, whatever that might mean)--in the spiritual kingdom with no mediating authority, in the temporal kingdom with various human authorities mediating his rule. We cannot confuse the institutional church--the visible church--with the spiritual kingdom, as the church herself participates in both the spiritual and temporal kingdoms. The outward form of the Church is governed by prudential reason informed by Scripture. This same prudential reason governs policy-making, voting, etc. Littlejohn uses this doctrine to push against all sorts of disorder in our ecclesiologies; in our conceptions of, participation in, and hopes for the state; and in our stewardship.

I'm eager to track down some of his other writings on the doctrine of the two kingdoms especially vis-a-vis money, as Littlejohn is also a part-time investment advisor.

[Peter F · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good representative summary of the project of Brad Littlejohn, the Davenant Trust, et. al. The thesis is essentially that early Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Hooker) had a doctrine of the two kingdoms which saw the distinction as between the invisible spiritual kingdom in which Christ rules believers immediately via the conscience, and the visible temporal kingdom in which Christ rules indirectly through the "masks" of civil government, church polity, fathers, etc. This is over against the R2k dichotomies of church/state or sacred/secular.

I still have lots of questions. I am reasonably convinced this was in fact Luther, Calvin, and Hooker's view of the two kingdoms and attempts to read them otherwise clearly appears to be a case of square pegs and round holes. However, many Puritans clearly identified the visible church with the spiritual kingdom not with the temporal kingdom, and indeed the Puritan controversies were the occasion of Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Many Presbyterians subsequently also based their ecclesiologies on essentially a Puritan two kingdoms doctrine, a tradition which continues today. So, I suppose my question is whether it is possible to arrive at a robust doctrine of church polity and government utilizing the two kingdoms doctrine put forward here. Is it just different prudential strokes for different folks?

[Ryan Handermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book accomplishes its goal: it gives a broad historical overview of how the reformers viewed the spiritual and temporal kingdoms of Christ, and also brought out some of the important implications of this to the modern world, all the while provoking more questions.

The protestant view of two kingdoms is set against the new R2K movement, which in turn is a reaction against the three others views. So I have set out the five views in summary form here:

Theonomy: The Old Testament is a very specific blueprint for all Christian political orders. (folks like Rushdoony)

Neo-Calvinism: All spheres of human life must be grounded in a distinctively Christian worldview (folks like Kuyper)

Evangelicalism: simplistic biblicism for political parties (folks like Hart)

R2K: the institutional church is governed by Scripture, the institutional state is governed by natural law (folks like Wright)

Also:

Anabaptists:
"the sword is ordained by God outside the perfection of Christ" (but even here there is hemming and hawing)

Protestant Two Kingdoms View in Brief:

"The two kingdoms were ... two ways in which the kingship of Christ made itself felt in the life of each and every believer."

The spiritual/internal/conscience/faith/coram Deo side of of Christ's reign
The temporal/external/outward action/coram hominibus side of Christ's reign

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As others have noted, this guide is not especially accessible to laymen. Littlejohn tends to write as an academic and his sentences can meander. In that sense, this guide is not so much for the perplexed, but may tend to greater perplexity.

That is not to say that this guide is without value. While I may not have “caught” everything in my first reading, the premise is a good one—the two kingdoms are not “church” and “state”, but are “spiritual” and “temporal”, and these two dichotomies are not equal to one another. That is, the church is not merely spiritual, but that the church has one foot in both the spiritual and temporal kingdoms. This is a historical correction of the current “R2K” doctrine.

There is much here to be mulled over. It should cause one to search out these things in the primary sources—Calvin, Luther, Hooker, etc. Further, it causes me to think that I have misunderstood the appeal to natural law. Littlejohn highly emphasizes natural law and its relevance for the two kingdoms. So I must read up on that subject next.

I would have liked to have seen some more specific engagement with Puritans, such as George Gillespie. Littlejohn doesn’t seem to give much credence to the Puritan positions on these things and, in fact, largely dismisses them. But alas, the book is too short to include everything.

TL;DR: Thought-provoking.

[Sean Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An un-perplexing and sharp little book that cuts through a dense issue with great efficiency. The first part of the book helpfully summarises the developments by (amongst others) Luther, Calvin and Hooker, while trying to respond to the misreadings of the Escondido folks.

One unanswered question I have it how Reasonable People can effectively engage in disputes in the temporal kingdom, when we evidently live in a world where appeals to natural law and reason are dismissed as readily as appeals to scriptural authority. Both nature and scripture tell us how many sexes are there, for instance, and both are equally ignored by whoever writes the PDHPE curriculum at your kid’s school. What then?

[Arthur · Rating 1 out of 5]

Worst book ever! Do not waste your time the book is more psychologically manipulative, rather than presenting arguments for the Doctrine. He asserts it is a “theory.” He lulls the reader to sleep presenting historical “clues” of this “theory.” Then presents the doctrine at the end when the readers guard is down like a negotiation tactic. This book has no real substance just philosophical jargon presupposing the “theory” with no real definitive support for his claims. Paul spoke about “philosophies of vein deceit,” that is this book.

This book is an attempt to subvert the Word of God with “theory,” “hints,” and “clues.” If I could give it 0 stars I would it is worthless and I am now dummer for reading it.