What do you think?
Rate this book
Living in God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture
Modern movements such as neo-Calvinism, the New Perspective on Paul, and the emerging church have popularized a view of Christianity and culture that calls for the redemption of earthly society and institutions. Many Christians have reflexively embraced this view, enticed by the socially active and engaged faith it produces.
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms illustrates how a two-kingdoms model of Christianity and culture affirms much of what is compelling in these transformationist movements while remaining faithful to the whole counsel of Scripture. By focusing on God’s response to each kingdom—his preservation of the civil society and his redemption of the spiritual kingdom—VanDrunen teaches readers how to live faithfully in each sphere.
Highlighting vital biblical distinctions between honorable and holy tasks, VanDrunen’s analysis will challenge Christians to be actively and critically engaged in the culture around them while retaining their identities as sojourners and exiles in this world.
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms illustrates how a two-kingdoms model of Christianity and culture affirms much of what is compelling in these transformationist movements while remaining faithful to the whole counsel of Scripture. By focusing on God’s response to each kingdom—his preservation of the civil society and his redemption of the spiritual kingdom—VanDrunen teaches readers how to live faithfully in each sphere.
Highlighting vital biblical distinctions between honorable and holy tasks, VanDrunen’s analysis will challenge Christians to be actively and critically engaged in the culture around them while retaining their identities as sojourners and exiles in this world.
210 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2010
89 people are currently reading
579 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
Want to read
June 12, 2023See Keith's Matheson's review here. While I appreciate DVD's concern with legalism (as I appreciate the concern with human-centered effort to transform culture), some of the R2K arguments sound eerily similar to some of the we're-not-antinomian-but-seriously-stop-trying-so-hard messages of people such as Tullian Tchividjian and Barbara Duguid. See a helpful review here. Wilson critiques the R2K position here (May 2020).
It's very telling that DVD originally titled his book Living in Babylon (see 26:32), which points to a disposition of permanent exile. This is why people like this like to talk about 1 Peter so much. They believe that that underdog point in history is perpetual, regardless of Scriptural statements about bread rising, a mountain growing, the increase of his government having no end, God's kingdom coming, his will being done on earth as it is in heaven, the discipleship of the nations, etc. There's no telos; we're not building anything. We're just kind of hanging tight until God's pulls us out of this mess.
One positive Goodreads review actually said, "The problem with [a transformational approach] is that it's exhausting to redeem every square inch." Sounds about right, regarding the cultural war fatigue that I suspect is the real motivation for the R2K position. The aversion to power seems to come from a preference for being an armchair quarterback: It's too difficult to lead well, and it's much easier to remain in a position of perpetual "exile" or "pilgrimage." Political power and authority is terrifying to some, not because it's unbiblical, but because it's too much work/pressure/responsibility. It's difficult, although not impossible, to defend biblically based policies; it's easy to sit back and complain about how bad things are and how triumphalist other Christians are.
It's very telling that DVD originally titled his book Living in Babylon (see 26:32), which points to a disposition of permanent exile. This is why people like this like to talk about 1 Peter so much. They believe that that underdog point in history is perpetual, regardless of Scriptural statements about bread rising, a mountain growing, the increase of his government having no end, God's kingdom coming, his will being done on earth as it is in heaven, the discipleship of the nations, etc. There's no telos; we're not building anything. We're just kind of hanging tight until God's pulls us out of this mess.
One positive Goodreads review actually said, "The problem with [a transformational approach] is that it's exhausting to redeem every square inch." Sounds about right, regarding the cultural war fatigue that I suspect is the real motivation for the R2K position. The aversion to power seems to come from a preference for being an armchair quarterback: It's too difficult to lead well, and it's much easier to remain in a position of perpetual "exile" or "pilgrimage." Political power and authority is terrifying to some, not because it's unbiblical, but because it's too much work/pressure/responsibility. It's difficult, although not impossible, to defend biblically based policies; it's easy to sit back and complain about how bad things are and how triumphalist other Christians are.
March 6, 2015
When I first picked up VanDrunen's book, I was hesitantly optimistic about his thesis. I had read a lecture by him before about the biblical foundation for civil government, and had appreciated some of his thoughts. So I was fairly open to his suggestions. His decision to lump Kuyperianism in with the New Perspective on Paul and the Emerging church in his introduction was alarming, but I was willing to hear his actual argument.
200 pages and 80 post-it notes of disagreement later, I'm genuinely confused about how anyone could find the biblical arguments for 2K-ism plausible--at least from the way that VanDrunen presented them. I mean, I get the appeal of 2K application, but the rationale for that application? I honestly don't understand it. After finding 80 separate places where I disagreed with the author, I could write for a long time about the various problems I've found in this book, but I've attempted to reduce my disagreements in the below section to a few main points.
The Negatives
First off, the way that VanDrunen deals with the "Two Adams" was pretty concerning. VanDrunen places a lot of emphasis on the cosmic aspect of the Fall--but seems to strangely ignore the primary effects of the Fall: the guilt that we all have and our need for a personal Savior. The primary tragedy of the Fall was not that Adam's cultural task was unfulfilled--it's that he rebelled and separated himself from God! VanDrunen's attempt to re-focus the salvation narrative on cultural tasks rather than on our personal sin and need for a Savior was therefore extremely concerning and undermined a large portion of his argument. Christ's coming obviously did influence how we are to interact with culture (see: Matthew 28); however, interpreting passages that are clearly dealing with Christ's victory over sin as really being about Christ fulfilling cultural tasks (as VanDrunen argues Hebrews 1:3-4 is) was concerning to me and an interpretation that I could not see justification for.
(Page references: 47, 51, 55)
Second, in VanDrunen's historical walk-through of the Old Testament, he very much seemed to interpret biblical passages with an agenda, instead of letting biblical passages set his agenda. When dealing with Old-Testament Israel, VanDrunen's argument seemed to basically be that Old-Testament Israel didn't fit well with his pre-determined thesis that Christians are ONLY sojourners into the land; therefore, it must not be relevant to the current discussion. This might work if not for the fact that this is a pretty biased look at the evidence. It honestly felt like VanDrunen was just trying to force these biblical passages to fit his thesis, instead of fitting his thesis to these biblical passages.
On a side-note, his treatment of Daniel's work in Babylon was likewise confusing. VanDrunen claims that Daniel and his friends weren't trying to transform Babylon into a different society. But he conveniently ignores the fact that Daniel and his friends' influence made all the princes abstain from meat, convinced them to stop bowing down to idols, and even led to the king himself commanding all men to pray to the true God! VanDrunen tries to say that Daniel had to either serve Babylon, or try to transform it. But this kind of dichotomy is nowhere found in Scripture.
(Page references: 88, 94-97)
Third, VanDrunen's distinction between moral commands that are applicable to everyone, and commands that are only applicable to God's people was also very alarming. VanDrunen claims that some parts of God's moral law, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are only applicable to God's people and are not universal moral commands for all people. Even ignoring the fact that Jesus wasn't only teaching his disciples in this passage like VanDrunen claims (he was teaching the multitudes), this sort of dichotomy is an extremely dangerous dichotomy that has no foundation in Scripture unless you're willing to read things into the text (which VanDrunen, unfortunately, seems willing to do). There are no special moral laws that are only given to God's people. God's moral law is universally the same for all people.
(Page references: 110, 166)
Fourth, VanDrunen seems to believe in an individualized-interpretation of biblical wisdom which means that the Church should be silent on matters of Christian wisdom. VanDrunen argues that when the application of biblical teaching is a matter of discretion, that churches must be silent. And, to a certain point, I'm ready to agree with him. But VanDrunen defines "matters of discretion" way too broadly. Laws against abortion are not simply matters of "political analysis" and thus matters that churches should be silent on. While VanDrunen clearly argues that churches should oppose abortion as a moral sin, his argument that churches should be silent on it politically is honestly foolish. When you're arguing that laws against abortion fall into "matters of discretion," then we have a problem.
(Page references: 185, 199-200, 203)
Finally, VanDrunen doesn't seem to understand Kuyperianism. Apart from the fact that he lumps it in with NPP and the Emerging church movement, he also seems to think that Kuyperians want Christians to set up their own financial markets, view the church as secondary to the Christian life, think that pastors should tell business owners whether or not to fire difficult employees, and claim that Scripture instructs us on the technical aspects of our jobs. While I know in every movement you will have wacky extremes, deciding to only focus on those extremes in rebuttals is bad argumentation. As a result, I don't feel like VanDrunen made many solid argument against Kuyperianism that weren't just arguing against strawmen.
(Page references: 122, 132, 163, 175, 178, 182)
Some other final questions I had after reading this book:
How can you interpret Romans 8 as the creation longing for its destruction?? How?
Why is God's authority over the nations found only in Genesis 9 and not in the fact that God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe? God's authority over the nations did not begin in Genesis 9.
Has VanDrunen spent much time in workfields outside the church to see how much certain fields are run contrary to biblical principles? VanDrunen claims that he's all for biblical principles being applied in our work, but he doesn't seem to understand how radical of a change that will make in a culture that's as corrupt as ours.
Why is VanDrunen unwilling to acknowledge Christian influence in transforming the culture? In several places, but particularly in his section on education, he seems either ignorant of or unwilling to admit the huge impact that Christians have had in the rebuttal of modern education.
What does VanDrunen think we'll be doing in heaven? If all our cultural acts are meaningless in the eternal perspective and there is no real continuity between the present earth and the new earth apart from our resurrected bodies (a view that few Reformed theologians hold to), what are we doing in heaven? Is it just an eternal Church service? Will we actually have work to do in Heaven?
The Positives
There are a few positive parts of the book. His chapter on the church was actually really good and I appreciated the emphasis he places on the primacy of the church. This primacy of the church is not a 2K-exclusive position, as much as VanDrunen may seem to think it is. But I did appreciate his thoughts on the importance of the Church to the believer.
In addition, some of his warnings about Christians being too obstinate and legalistic about matters of discretion are warnings that certain conservative Christians need to hear. VanDrunen defines these matters of discretion way too broadly. But some Kuyperians do have a tendency to be less humble and more judgmental than they should in certain matters.
Overall
I expected that this book would help me appreciate the 2K position more. Instead, my opinion of 2K theology as a viable alternative to Kuyperianism has only fallen. Perhaps more biblically-reasonable defenses of 2K theology are out there. But this book most certainly is not one of them.
Rating: 1 Star (Very Poor).
200 pages and 80 post-it notes of disagreement later, I'm genuinely confused about how anyone could find the biblical arguments for 2K-ism plausible--at least from the way that VanDrunen presented them. I mean, I get the appeal of 2K application, but the rationale for that application? I honestly don't understand it. After finding 80 separate places where I disagreed with the author, I could write for a long time about the various problems I've found in this book, but I've attempted to reduce my disagreements in the below section to a few main points.
The Negatives
First off, the way that VanDrunen deals with the "Two Adams" was pretty concerning. VanDrunen places a lot of emphasis on the cosmic aspect of the Fall--but seems to strangely ignore the primary effects of the Fall: the guilt that we all have and our need for a personal Savior. The primary tragedy of the Fall was not that Adam's cultural task was unfulfilled--it's that he rebelled and separated himself from God! VanDrunen's attempt to re-focus the salvation narrative on cultural tasks rather than on our personal sin and need for a Savior was therefore extremely concerning and undermined a large portion of his argument. Christ's coming obviously did influence how we are to interact with culture (see: Matthew 28); however, interpreting passages that are clearly dealing with Christ's victory over sin as really being about Christ fulfilling cultural tasks (as VanDrunen argues Hebrews 1:3-4 is) was concerning to me and an interpretation that I could not see justification for.
(Page references: 47, 51, 55)
Second, in VanDrunen's historical walk-through of the Old Testament, he very much seemed to interpret biblical passages with an agenda, instead of letting biblical passages set his agenda. When dealing with Old-Testament Israel, VanDrunen's argument seemed to basically be that Old-Testament Israel didn't fit well with his pre-determined thesis that Christians are ONLY sojourners into the land; therefore, it must not be relevant to the current discussion. This might work if not for the fact that this is a pretty biased look at the evidence. It honestly felt like VanDrunen was just trying to force these biblical passages to fit his thesis, instead of fitting his thesis to these biblical passages.
On a side-note, his treatment of Daniel's work in Babylon was likewise confusing. VanDrunen claims that Daniel and his friends weren't trying to transform Babylon into a different society. But he conveniently ignores the fact that Daniel and his friends' influence made all the princes abstain from meat, convinced them to stop bowing down to idols, and even led to the king himself commanding all men to pray to the true God! VanDrunen tries to say that Daniel had to either serve Babylon, or try to transform it. But this kind of dichotomy is nowhere found in Scripture.
(Page references: 88, 94-97)
Third, VanDrunen's distinction between moral commands that are applicable to everyone, and commands that are only applicable to God's people was also very alarming. VanDrunen claims that some parts of God's moral law, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are only applicable to God's people and are not universal moral commands for all people. Even ignoring the fact that Jesus wasn't only teaching his disciples in this passage like VanDrunen claims (he was teaching the multitudes), this sort of dichotomy is an extremely dangerous dichotomy that has no foundation in Scripture unless you're willing to read things into the text (which VanDrunen, unfortunately, seems willing to do). There are no special moral laws that are only given to God's people. God's moral law is universally the same for all people.
(Page references: 110, 166)
Fourth, VanDrunen seems to believe in an individualized-interpretation of biblical wisdom which means that the Church should be silent on matters of Christian wisdom. VanDrunen argues that when the application of biblical teaching is a matter of discretion, that churches must be silent. And, to a certain point, I'm ready to agree with him. But VanDrunen defines "matters of discretion" way too broadly. Laws against abortion are not simply matters of "political analysis" and thus matters that churches should be silent on. While VanDrunen clearly argues that churches should oppose abortion as a moral sin, his argument that churches should be silent on it politically is honestly foolish. When you're arguing that laws against abortion fall into "matters of discretion," then we have a problem.
(Page references: 185, 199-200, 203)
Finally, VanDrunen doesn't seem to understand Kuyperianism. Apart from the fact that he lumps it in with NPP and the Emerging church movement, he also seems to think that Kuyperians want Christians to set up their own financial markets, view the church as secondary to the Christian life, think that pastors should tell business owners whether or not to fire difficult employees, and claim that Scripture instructs us on the technical aspects of our jobs. While I know in every movement you will have wacky extremes, deciding to only focus on those extremes in rebuttals is bad argumentation. As a result, I don't feel like VanDrunen made many solid argument against Kuyperianism that weren't just arguing against strawmen.
(Page references: 122, 132, 163, 175, 178, 182)
Some other final questions I had after reading this book:
How can you interpret Romans 8 as the creation longing for its destruction?? How?
Why is God's authority over the nations found only in Genesis 9 and not in the fact that God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe? God's authority over the nations did not begin in Genesis 9.
Has VanDrunen spent much time in workfields outside the church to see how much certain fields are run contrary to biblical principles? VanDrunen claims that he's all for biblical principles being applied in our work, but he doesn't seem to understand how radical of a change that will make in a culture that's as corrupt as ours.
Why is VanDrunen unwilling to acknowledge Christian influence in transforming the culture? In several places, but particularly in his section on education, he seems either ignorant of or unwilling to admit the huge impact that Christians have had in the rebuttal of modern education.
What does VanDrunen think we'll be doing in heaven? If all our cultural acts are meaningless in the eternal perspective and there is no real continuity between the present earth and the new earth apart from our resurrected bodies (a view that few Reformed theologians hold to), what are we doing in heaven? Is it just an eternal Church service? Will we actually have work to do in Heaven?
The Positives
There are a few positive parts of the book. His chapter on the church was actually really good and I appreciated the emphasis he places on the primacy of the church. This primacy of the church is not a 2K-exclusive position, as much as VanDrunen may seem to think it is. But I did appreciate his thoughts on the importance of the Church to the believer.
In addition, some of his warnings about Christians being too obstinate and legalistic about matters of discretion are warnings that certain conservative Christians need to hear. VanDrunen defines these matters of discretion way too broadly. But some Kuyperians do have a tendency to be less humble and more judgmental than they should in certain matters.
Overall
I expected that this book would help me appreciate the 2K position more. Instead, my opinion of 2K theology as a viable alternative to Kuyperianism has only fallen. Perhaps more biblically-reasonable defenses of 2K theology are out there. But this book most certainly is not one of them.
Rating: 1 Star (Very Poor).
June 12, 2021
Excellent. The best thing I've read on Christianity and Culture and how they interact with each other.
Read
July 7, 2021Just awful. A theology of reformed cultural retreat. It's like dispensationalism got infant baptized.
For a complete leveling of two kingdoms theology, check out this interview:
http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-...
For a complete leveling of two kingdoms theology, check out this interview:
http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-...
June 7, 2021
Great.
Of course not a flawless system, but extremely helpful and practical. Theology with liberating implications, especially for someone bought up in a confusing mix of cultural-revivalism type theology. The biblical framework of the two Adams used here is so good, and important.
“To understand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work.”
Of course not a flawless system, but extremely helpful and practical. Theology with liberating implications, especially for someone bought up in a confusing mix of cultural-revivalism type theology. The biblical framework of the two Adams used here is so good, and important.
“To understand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work.”
June 7, 2022
Super helpful. Will revisit this many times.
----
2nd time through.
Liked it the first time, loved it the second time. The case VanDrunen makes is sound and solid, seeking to address the scope of where Scripture addresses these ideas. He manages to do it within the space of a couple hundred pages without it being an information overload. The theological categories were helpful, particularly around the idea of the two Adams, and what Christ's work should mean for our understanding of the adamic cultural mandate and cultural transformation. He manages to avoid the extremes of cultural retreat on the one hand, and blurring common and redemptive kingdom work, and in doing so provides a corrective for Christians who tend to lean into either. The final chapter that fleshed this out in work, education, and politics was practical and helpful (though I think his wording on abortion could have been more clear. It seems to me that he's simply stating that Christians can approach ridding our societies of it in a range of different ways, but he does sound a little like he's saying at one point whether we should rid our societies of it is debatable, and I'm sure VanDrunen does not think this). I first read this in 2017, and am now reading it five years later. In that time, I (like all of us) have had to think more about political theology/cultural engagement more, and after hearing a range of takes, I've come to appreciate VanDrunen's work even more. I'll bump it from 4 to 5 stars.
----
2nd time through.
Liked it the first time, loved it the second time. The case VanDrunen makes is sound and solid, seeking to address the scope of where Scripture addresses these ideas. He manages to do it within the space of a couple hundred pages without it being an information overload. The theological categories were helpful, particularly around the idea of the two Adams, and what Christ's work should mean for our understanding of the adamic cultural mandate and cultural transformation. He manages to avoid the extremes of cultural retreat on the one hand, and blurring common and redemptive kingdom work, and in doing so provides a corrective for Christians who tend to lean into either. The final chapter that fleshed this out in work, education, and politics was practical and helpful (though I think his wording on abortion could have been more clear. It seems to me that he's simply stating that Christians can approach ridding our societies of it in a range of different ways, but he does sound a little like he's saying at one point whether we should rid our societies of it is debatable, and I'm sure VanDrunen does not think this). I first read this in 2017, and am now reading it five years later. In that time, I (like all of us) have had to think more about political theology/cultural engagement more, and after hearing a range of takes, I've come to appreciate VanDrunen's work even more. I'll bump it from 4 to 5 stars.
August 24, 2019
Say what you will about the book but there is no doubt that it will make you think deeply about the subject. There were some things I found concerning, other parts I found quite convincing. All I can say for certain is that this is only the beginning of my study.
June 19, 2021
Great treatment of the doctrine of Two Kingdoms. Basing the life of the Christian, not in their own works of cultural redemption, but in the finished work of Christ as the second Adam, takes a load off Christian engagement with the world. Missing Christ's active obedience and how He has fulfilled the covenant of works and Adam's mandate will cause one to look inwardly at how we can change culture and redeem it. VanDrunen does a good job at exhorting the Christian to look away from themselves and to Christ as the motivation for all Christian life. We are Christians, sojourning in a land that is not our own, on our way to the Promised Land of rest. We are to seek the welfare of where we live yet, continually looking in faith to the culmination of Christ's work in the New Heavens. We can live freely, with lives glorifying to God when we understand these things.
May 20, 2011
Even though I've rated this book low, I agree with many of DVD's points. But there are many more that I disagree with and I found his applications to either be confusing or just plain ridiculous.
To take just one example out of many, DVD says "...how much liberty do Christians really have when these topics [abortion, homosexuality, etc] become political controversies? To what extent are there 'Christian' positions on political questions such as abortion, such that the church might promote them and one Christian expect another Christian to hold them? In my judgment, the general rule is that the church must teach--and Christians may hold one another accountable for believing--all that Scripture says about such topics as moral issues but should be silent about such topics as concrete political or public policy issues" (177; emphasis removed).
This strikes me as absurd. Excuse me while I use an extreme example to illustrate my point: Suppose for the sake of argument that me and VanDrunen go to the same church. I start going around town telling everyone that I think VanDrunen's kids should be murdered and his wife abused because he's such a dummy. Could VanDrunen not approach the church elders about disciplining me? Of course. I'm confident that I would be called to repent and excommunicated if I didn't. Now what if I start going around town and telling everyone that I think, as a matter of public policy, VanDrunen's kids should be murdered and his wife abused because he's such a dummy. I even write up a bill detailing how it should be done. Well, now it looks like DVD can't bring his complaint to the church because the church should be silent about such topics, what with it being a concrete public policy issue. Christian liberty, right?
Absurd. And if a bill was proposed to round up all Jews and send them off to concentration camps and murder them then, Christian or not, it seems obvious that all persons have a responsibility to vote against it and any Christian who didn't vote against it should be called to repentance by their church officers for being complicit in murder (or attempted murder assuming it didn't pass) and excommunicated if they were obstinate. Same with bills that advocate murdering children.
VanDrunen also criticizes labeling certain activities "Christian," but I find his criticisms here to be misguided, or else directed at a fringe group that is hardly representative of what most people mean when they talk about doing something in a "Christian way." When we consider what most "transformationalists" mean by this term they seem to mean the *same thing* that DVD says when he makes the following kind of statements:
"Christians should seek to live out the implications of their faith in their daily vocations" (12).
"I hope to provide encouragement to ordinary Christians--to ordinary Christians who work, study, vote, raise families, help the poor, run business, make music, watch movies, ride bikes, and engage in all sorts of other cultural activities, and who wish to live thoughtful and God-pleasing lives in doing so" (21).
Apparently, DVD thinks that we can ride our bikes in a "thoughtful and God-pleasing" way. But I don't see how this is less "Christian" than seeking to play football in a God-pleasing way (in his book "Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms" DVD criticizes neo-Calvinists who look for a "Christian" way of playing football. If DVD just doesn't want to slap the label "Christian" onto Christians riding bikes in a "thoughtful and God-pleasing" way then fine... he can call it whatever he wants, but it still looks the same to me. The fact is, atheists aren't riding their bikes in this way and therefore, despite the fact that we are doing the same activity, there is a sense in which we aren't doing it in the same way.
DVD basically admits this but offers specific defense of his position in chapter 7. I didn't find any of it convincing. He ends by saying that he finds calling certain cultural activities Christian to be confusing and unhelpful. Frankly, I think that's because he is caricaturing the way most "transformationalists" would understand the term and I found his own discussion here unhelpful. But laying out his argument and then laying out my response would make this a very long review, so I'll just leave it at that.
To take just one example out of many, DVD says "...how much liberty do Christians really have when these topics [abortion, homosexuality, etc] become political controversies? To what extent are there 'Christian' positions on political questions such as abortion, such that the church might promote them and one Christian expect another Christian to hold them? In my judgment, the general rule is that the church must teach--and Christians may hold one another accountable for believing--all that Scripture says about such topics as moral issues but should be silent about such topics as concrete political or public policy issues" (177; emphasis removed).
This strikes me as absurd. Excuse me while I use an extreme example to illustrate my point: Suppose for the sake of argument that me and VanDrunen go to the same church. I start going around town telling everyone that I think VanDrunen's kids should be murdered and his wife abused because he's such a dummy. Could VanDrunen not approach the church elders about disciplining me? Of course. I'm confident that I would be called to repent and excommunicated if I didn't. Now what if I start going around town and telling everyone that I think, as a matter of public policy, VanDrunen's kids should be murdered and his wife abused because he's such a dummy. I even write up a bill detailing how it should be done. Well, now it looks like DVD can't bring his complaint to the church because the church should be silent about such topics, what with it being a concrete public policy issue. Christian liberty, right?
Absurd. And if a bill was proposed to round up all Jews and send them off to concentration camps and murder them then, Christian or not, it seems obvious that all persons have a responsibility to vote against it and any Christian who didn't vote against it should be called to repentance by their church officers for being complicit in murder (or attempted murder assuming it didn't pass) and excommunicated if they were obstinate. Same with bills that advocate murdering children.
VanDrunen also criticizes labeling certain activities "Christian," but I find his criticisms here to be misguided, or else directed at a fringe group that is hardly representative of what most people mean when they talk about doing something in a "Christian way." When we consider what most "transformationalists" mean by this term they seem to mean the *same thing* that DVD says when he makes the following kind of statements:
"Christians should seek to live out the implications of their faith in their daily vocations" (12).
"I hope to provide encouragement to ordinary Christians--to ordinary Christians who work, study, vote, raise families, help the poor, run business, make music, watch movies, ride bikes, and engage in all sorts of other cultural activities, and who wish to live thoughtful and God-pleasing lives in doing so" (21).
Apparently, DVD thinks that we can ride our bikes in a "thoughtful and God-pleasing" way. But I don't see how this is less "Christian" than seeking to play football in a God-pleasing way (in his book "Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms" DVD criticizes neo-Calvinists who look for a "Christian" way of playing football. If DVD just doesn't want to slap the label "Christian" onto Christians riding bikes in a "thoughtful and God-pleasing" way then fine... he can call it whatever he wants, but it still looks the same to me. The fact is, atheists aren't riding their bikes in this way and therefore, despite the fact that we are doing the same activity, there is a sense in which we aren't doing it in the same way.
DVD basically admits this but offers specific defense of his position in chapter 7. I didn't find any of it convincing. He ends by saying that he finds calling certain cultural activities Christian to be confusing and unhelpful. Frankly, I think that's because he is caricaturing the way most "transformationalists" would understand the term and I found his own discussion here unhelpful. But laying out his argument and then laying out my response would make this a very long review, so I'll just leave it at that.
June 8, 2012
A presentation of natural law Christianity at the pop level. I am not a fan at all of the position that VanDrunen espouses here as a presuppositionalist. It is as Frame put it, "Amillennialism on steroids", Vandrunen focuses in on the sojourner texts as well as the idea that the "Kingdom is not of this world" and seems to say the kingdom of God is not in this world, and thus he fails to escape the charge of escapism. I also though his understanding of the progression of the covenants to be rather shabby and borderline dispensational, as he pits the Noahic covenant against the Mosaic in order to derive his two kingdom idea.
I just go back to our Lord's final marching orders, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go therefore making disciples of the nations..." Much more can be said and if one wants an evenhanded critique of this book I'd recommend Keith Mathison's article where he essentially rips Vandrunen's arguments to shreds.
I just go back to our Lord's final marching orders, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go therefore making disciples of the nations..." Much more can be said and if one wants an evenhanded critique of this book I'd recommend Keith Mathison's article where he essentially rips Vandrunen's arguments to shreds.
April 1, 2024
While I have long held to the doctrine of the Two-Kingdoms, this book provided clear lines, a deeper understanding of the doctrine, and good structural pillers to help navigate the way we handle the common and redemptive Kingdoms. It is always helpful to have truth firmly stayed and clearer in our minds. I very much appreciated his helpful thoughts on education, vocation, and politics. I very much appreciated his high standard of the role of the church in the believers' life and Christian liberty. He is firm, gentle, kind, and draws understandable lines.
https://www.hearthkeeper.org/educatio...
https://www.hearthkeeper.org/educatio...
May 11, 2020
One of the most important theological and pastoral issues today—and throughout Church history—is the so-called "Christ and Culture" debate, or how do Christians and the Christian Church relate to the unbelieving World and institutions that are not the church. A dominate stream among Reformed and Evangelical Protestantism today is "Transformationalism" or Niebuhr's "Christ the transformer of Culture," the view that Christians are called to transform unbelieving culture into a Christian culture of some sort. Over against this trend, there has been a resurgence of Two-Kingdoms or "Christ and culture in paradox." Meredith Kline and Westminster Seminary California have been particularly associated with a Reformed two kingdoms theory. In his book Living in God's Two Kingdoms, (I read the Logos edition, which was of good quality except for several paragraphs of text where the footnote was transposed into the body, near the end of the book) David VanDrunen of Westminster California presents a relatively up-to-date defence of this position (published 2010). VanDrunen offers a careful and clear presentation of the doctrine, so the volume is a helpful contribution for the student, pastor, or scholar seeking to understand the main argument for and implications of the Reformed Two Kingdoms doctrine (R2K). Even for the reader who does not sympathize with this position, there are insights to be gleaned; VanDrunen's analysis of the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount as an inversion of the lex talionis, instead of giving proportionate retribution it is rendering proportional kindness and mercy in response to injustice, is profound: "When the citizens of heaven refuse to retaliate against an evildoer, but instead endure the second evil themselves, they are a living exhibit of the gospel" (111). However, as for the proposal itself, VanDrunen fails to convince on several grounds. After summarizing the book and VanDrunen's argument, I will then offer an evaluation of VanDrunen's R2K proposal.
Summary
In the first chapter, after discussing the Christ and culture debate, he defines culture as he will use employ it: "In a book such as this, I do not use the term 'culture' in an overly precise or technical way. I use it primarily to refer to the broad range of activities—scientific, artistic, economic, etc.—in which human beings engage" (32). The following six chapters are divided across three parts. The first part, chapters two and three, sketches the biblical-theological context for the Two Kingdoms doctrine, focusing on the contrast between the first Adam and Jesus Christ, the second Adam. These two chapters have a significant role in his case for the R2K doctrine. His argument here is against the continuing cultural mandate, a transformationist teaching. He argues that Adam's task was probationary, to keep and guard the garden as a test to see if he will inherit the "world-to-come." Because Jesus Christ fully succeeds in Adam's task, securing the world-to-come for Believers who are found in Him, there is no task left to accomplish. The rest in the world-to-come that was Adam's ultimate destiny—which he failed to attain—is attained by us in Christ. Therefore, the mandate is no longer valid. For this reason, there is no specific, redemptive task involving general "cultural" duties. This is primarily a negative argument: if the cultural mandate is not in place, Transformationism is false.
The second part, chapters four and five, go through the Old and New Testament, showing how the two kingdoms play out across the Testaments. He argues that there is a spiritual antithesis in play, an essential Reformed doctrine, but contends that this antithesis does not override the cultural commonality ordained in God's common kingdom. The common kingdom is grounded in God's covenant with Noah. This covenant concerns cultural activity, not religious activity, which is associated with God's redemptive covenant. This latter covenant is instituted with Abraham and concerns salvation, "opening up the gates of the world-to-come" (84). The common kingdom is governed by God through nature (e.g. 153-154, 168), (Cf. VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, 37-39) the redemptive kingdom is ruled by God through His verbal revelation. In the Old Testament, we see the two kingdoms doctrine working out in Abraham's life, Israel's life outside the land, and Israel's exile in Babylon. Within the land, there is only the redemptive kingdom. In the New Testament, the exilic or sojourner theme in 1 Peter, Hebrews, and elsewhere demonstrates the continuity between these experiences.
The third part, chapters six and seven, zooms in to consider the concrete application of the two kingdoms for the Christian life. VanDrunen argues that Christians should do not have distinctly "Christian" vocations and do not engage in "redemptive" work. Common kingdom work is blessed by God but has no enduring significance, so we live within this kingdom in a "detached" manner. Education is another instance of a common kingdom endeavour. VanDrunen argues that politics is a common kingdom matter; Christian can participate in government, military, or law enforcement. VanDrunen argues that the Bible gives five general principles concerning government by which Christians ought to conduct their common kingdom lives. VanDrunen's main focus in this chapter, however, is the Church. He argues that the primary referent of the Church in the New Testament is the local Church gathered (116, 132-135): "I distinguish between the work and life of the Church and the work and life of individual believers (or groups of believers) as they make their way in this World. Believers and groups of believers do not constitute 'the church' in everything they do." (117) "Participation in the life of the church, not participation in the cultural activities of the broader world, is central for the Christian life" (133). (Cf. "Bearing the Sword in the State," Themelios 34:3, pg. 329-331) He argues for the ministerial authority of the Church and the regulatory principle of worship.
- See my full review at https://teleioteti.ca/?p=4058 (as of 8:00 pst, May 11)
Summary
In the first chapter, after discussing the Christ and culture debate, he defines culture as he will use employ it: "In a book such as this, I do not use the term 'culture' in an overly precise or technical way. I use it primarily to refer to the broad range of activities—scientific, artistic, economic, etc.—in which human beings engage" (32). The following six chapters are divided across three parts. The first part, chapters two and three, sketches the biblical-theological context for the Two Kingdoms doctrine, focusing on the contrast between the first Adam and Jesus Christ, the second Adam. These two chapters have a significant role in his case for the R2K doctrine. His argument here is against the continuing cultural mandate, a transformationist teaching. He argues that Adam's task was probationary, to keep and guard the garden as a test to see if he will inherit the "world-to-come." Because Jesus Christ fully succeeds in Adam's task, securing the world-to-come for Believers who are found in Him, there is no task left to accomplish. The rest in the world-to-come that was Adam's ultimate destiny—which he failed to attain—is attained by us in Christ. Therefore, the mandate is no longer valid. For this reason, there is no specific, redemptive task involving general "cultural" duties. This is primarily a negative argument: if the cultural mandate is not in place, Transformationism is false.
The second part, chapters four and five, go through the Old and New Testament, showing how the two kingdoms play out across the Testaments. He argues that there is a spiritual antithesis in play, an essential Reformed doctrine, but contends that this antithesis does not override the cultural commonality ordained in God's common kingdom. The common kingdom is grounded in God's covenant with Noah. This covenant concerns cultural activity, not religious activity, which is associated with God's redemptive covenant. This latter covenant is instituted with Abraham and concerns salvation, "opening up the gates of the world-to-come" (84). The common kingdom is governed by God through nature (e.g. 153-154, 168), (Cf. VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, 37-39) the redemptive kingdom is ruled by God through His verbal revelation. In the Old Testament, we see the two kingdoms doctrine working out in Abraham's life, Israel's life outside the land, and Israel's exile in Babylon. Within the land, there is only the redemptive kingdom. In the New Testament, the exilic or sojourner theme in 1 Peter, Hebrews, and elsewhere demonstrates the continuity between these experiences.
The third part, chapters six and seven, zooms in to consider the concrete application of the two kingdoms for the Christian life. VanDrunen argues that Christians should do not have distinctly "Christian" vocations and do not engage in "redemptive" work. Common kingdom work is blessed by God but has no enduring significance, so we live within this kingdom in a "detached" manner. Education is another instance of a common kingdom endeavour. VanDrunen argues that politics is a common kingdom matter; Christian can participate in government, military, or law enforcement. VanDrunen argues that the Bible gives five general principles concerning government by which Christians ought to conduct their common kingdom lives. VanDrunen's main focus in this chapter, however, is the Church. He argues that the primary referent of the Church in the New Testament is the local Church gathered (116, 132-135): "I distinguish between the work and life of the Church and the work and life of individual believers (or groups of believers) as they make their way in this World. Believers and groups of believers do not constitute 'the church' in everything they do." (117) "Participation in the life of the church, not participation in the cultural activities of the broader world, is central for the Christian life" (133). (Cf. "Bearing the Sword in the State," Themelios 34:3, pg. 329-331) He argues for the ministerial authority of the Church and the regulatory principle of worship.
- See my full review at https://teleioteti.ca/?p=4058 (as of 8:00 pst, May 11)
July 29, 2022
Was looking for a good explanation of 2K theology. If this is it, I am definitely not a 2k theologian. The book was well-written and well-organized but because I did not agree with the authors primary premise (i.e. the Noahic covenant governs the common kingdom), I did not agree with his arguments or conclusions.
Read
February 3, 2020This was entirely an academic read, and I can only recommend it as such -- if at all.
I went into Living in God's Two Kingdoms expecting to agree with some of the foundations of Two Kingdoms theology and find the applications off; and I came out feeling I could approve some of the applications but finding the theological principles severely concerning. Admittedly, I didn't know that much about the idea to begin with, given that I've only been familiar with it for about a month since an intense and chaotic discussion about it with friends. (On our own, we came up with the exact example VanDrunen outlines regarding a 2K perspective on abortion and the church -- cheers!) Perhaps it's a little early to entirely discount any merit to the 2K argument, but if VanDrunen is the leading proponent and this book a primary document of this theological branch, then I think it's a sound conclusion, however hasty.
To begin with, for a book that draws such a sharp distinction between cultural activity and the Christian identity, this work -- and the Two Kingdoms ideology, by extension -- essentially makes cultural activity the basis for the Christian identity. I thought VanDrunen raised interesting points about the implications of God's commands to Adam, but I disagree with his emphasis of it as solely a "cultural mandate" and his argument that Adam's failing lay in his neglecting to carry out such a mandate. VanDrunen's case includes no reference to personal sin and our need for a personal Savior, but rather states that Jesus is a second Adam because he carries out the "cultural tasks" the first could not. Worldly achievements, therefore, become the basis for the separation for the "Two Kingdoms" -- the common kingdom and the kingdom of heaven. Nowhere is Adam's disobedience of God's law and consequent disruption of his relationship with God addressed as key to Jesus's redeeming work. As a result, it is our cultural efforts and actions which take center stage in our relationship with God, where according to VanDrunen we are not obligated to make an effort to "redeem" our contemporary culture but rather to examine how to live as Christians within it.
It's a timeless issue well worth discussing, how Christians should handle what VanDrunen describes as conflicting ideas of antithesis and commonality -- the great difference between Christians and non-Christians, but the fact that believers and non-believers alike interact and engage in similar behaviors as long as we are together in this world. I just don't think the 2K perspective succeeds at all at addressing it. I suppose if the point of any work in the world is earning your redemption, then it's unnecessary given what Christ has done; but why exactly should social action be considered an attempt at securing God's mercy? (I do need to better comprehend the preservation vs. redemption debate before I can fully articulate all of my issues with the idea, but that's about the size of it.)
Finally, to praise the organization and articulation of VanDrunen's argument seems questionable given the faults I've found with it, but for what it's worth -- the author is a solid writer and has a couple of strongly expressed phrases that I agreed with. One or two. I also found myself agreeing with much of what he says regarding the church. (As for the abortion debate, though, I wouldn't say I'm entirely sold. Perhaps telling the congregation from the pulpit to vote for or against a certain bill isn't part of a pastor's duties, as VanDrunen argues. But calling out abortion, which is very much an issue of policy as it is morals, seems fitting to me.) Regardless of whether you advocate the 2K perspective, understanding the importance of the church is fundamental to the Christian faith.
This review may be a work in progress, depending on what I discover next. Always up for a new discussion on this subject now.
I went into Living in God's Two Kingdoms expecting to agree with some of the foundations of Two Kingdoms theology and find the applications off; and I came out feeling I could approve some of the applications but finding the theological principles severely concerning. Admittedly, I didn't know that much about the idea to begin with, given that I've only been familiar with it for about a month since an intense and chaotic discussion about it with friends. (On our own, we came up with the exact example VanDrunen outlines regarding a 2K perspective on abortion and the church -- cheers!) Perhaps it's a little early to entirely discount any merit to the 2K argument, but if VanDrunen is the leading proponent and this book a primary document of this theological branch, then I think it's a sound conclusion, however hasty.
To begin with, for a book that draws such a sharp distinction between cultural activity and the Christian identity, this work -- and the Two Kingdoms ideology, by extension -- essentially makes cultural activity the basis for the Christian identity. I thought VanDrunen raised interesting points about the implications of God's commands to Adam, but I disagree with his emphasis of it as solely a "cultural mandate" and his argument that Adam's failing lay in his neglecting to carry out such a mandate. VanDrunen's case includes no reference to personal sin and our need for a personal Savior, but rather states that Jesus is a second Adam because he carries out the "cultural tasks" the first could not. Worldly achievements, therefore, become the basis for the separation for the "Two Kingdoms" -- the common kingdom and the kingdom of heaven. Nowhere is Adam's disobedience of God's law and consequent disruption of his relationship with God addressed as key to Jesus's redeeming work. As a result, it is our cultural efforts and actions which take center stage in our relationship with God, where according to VanDrunen we are not obligated to make an effort to "redeem" our contemporary culture but rather to examine how to live as Christians within it.
It's a timeless issue well worth discussing, how Christians should handle what VanDrunen describes as conflicting ideas of antithesis and commonality -- the great difference between Christians and non-Christians, but the fact that believers and non-believers alike interact and engage in similar behaviors as long as we are together in this world. I just don't think the 2K perspective succeeds at all at addressing it. I suppose if the point of any work in the world is earning your redemption, then it's unnecessary given what Christ has done; but why exactly should social action be considered an attempt at securing God's mercy? (I do need to better comprehend the preservation vs. redemption debate before I can fully articulate all of my issues with the idea, but that's about the size of it.)
Finally, to praise the organization and articulation of VanDrunen's argument seems questionable given the faults I've found with it, but for what it's worth -- the author is a solid writer and has a couple of strongly expressed phrases that I agreed with. One or two. I also found myself agreeing with much of what he says regarding the church. (As for the abortion debate, though, I wouldn't say I'm entirely sold. Perhaps telling the congregation from the pulpit to vote for or against a certain bill isn't part of a pastor's duties, as VanDrunen argues. But calling out abortion, which is very much an issue of policy as it is morals, seems fitting to me.) Regardless of whether you advocate the 2K perspective, understanding the importance of the church is fundamental to the Christian faith.
This review may be a work in progress, depending on what I discover next. Always up for a new discussion on this subject now.
June 1, 2022
I’ve really enjoyed the distinction that VanDrunnen exposed. But i would not hold to the separation he makes. I think there’s way more mingling between the two kingdoms (to use his language) that he dare admits. The power of the sword that belongs to the common kingdom is to uphold the law, that belongs to the spiritual kingdom for example. There’s no evidences that, had Adam pass the obedience test, that all would have been fostered into the world to come. And there as well he makes too much of a separation in my opinion. There’s going to be a new earth with a new Jerusalem, cities that some will rules, little babes will lay will lions … the cut is too sharp, there seems to still be a “common life”. Though i agree, that Christ, as the second Adam succeeded where the first Adam failed and that all is accomplished, and that we are not given a second chance at success. This doesn’t entail the isolation of the law to God’s people. We must remember that there’s only one human race, and that it is sin at Babel that we ended up with multiple nation/ethnicities. God chose ethnic Israel to start His redeeming work, but the nations have always been part of it. God is the God of all creation, whether they acknowledge it or not, and therefore the law is binding for all, a whole lot of the law have to do with the common life and the law that kings and governments are to uphold and/or enforce is the law of God. Are the non christians not going to answer idolatry? Murder, envy, lying… I believe he failed to demonstrate the two kingdom working side by side in history. In the sermon on the mont Jesus is talking to the multitude. In Romans the earth is patiently awaiting redemption. I really appreciated as well his treatment of the church emphasizing its primary role, to preach the good new, and build the body, equip the church. But does that necessarily means that the church cannot speak on common things? Cannot address sin corporately, cannot call the culture to repent, but only individual in a private manner? I don’t think so. I think there’s a redeeming life/culture aspect to our preaching of the gospel. Finally, his decision to address N.T. Wright,New Perspective on Paul and the Emerging Church, is an unfortunate one and an unproductive one, as all reformed will object and condemn those. It would have been more beneficial i think if he would have interacted, with those who would agree with him on the distinctions and primary role of the church (like Joe Booth for example), without radically separating the two realms and also upholding the law as binding on all creation.
June 4, 2023
I finished VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms on a plane ride to Ethiopia. I generally liked it. There was a lot of good in it, particularly as it relates to understanding (1) the distinction between the realm of God’s saving kingdom and the realm of general society; (2) not confusing God’s kingdom with the state; (3) situating the redemptive-historical role of the church as being in exile in this world, more comparable to the Jews in Babylon or Abraham as a sojourner, and less like Israel in the Promised Land; and (4) establishing Christian liberty, especially in the area of politics and cultural engagement. In this way, this book is a good correction against the current theonomy and Christian nationalism trends.
But it also had some points where I think VanDrunen made some significant missteps, and actually went too far in the other direction: specifically (1) in arguing for Christ as the second Adam who completely fulfilled the cultural mandate (fulfilling God’s law *for* believers; justification), he seemed to leave no room for the fulfillment of God’s law *in* believers (sanctification). In other words, not only does Christ keep the covenant of works for us (instead of us, on our behalf), but then as believers Christ now also enables us to perform the law, not as a means of justification but as the growth of sanctification. It seems then that the believers' current call to cultural engagement (fulfilling the cultural mandate) does not, therefore, jeopardize Christ’s finished work and justification by faith alone, as VanDrunen argues, but would fit within the category of sanctification—the image of God progressively renewed in believers (Col 3); (2) VanDrunen makes too sharp of a distinction between the original and new creation. Rather than seeing the new creation as the renewal and restoration of this creation, he seems instead to view it as a replacement, thus discounting that our current work to care for creation and culture could reflect, be a byproduct of, or have any continuity with Christ’s work of restoring creation (his new creation).
I still think VanDrunen’s work is worth reading; but I would encourage doing so critically, aware of these missteps. I can understand why some have negatively characterized this school of thought as a “radical” Two Kingdoms theology (R2K)--I see that. There are some oddly extreme (reductionistic) applications of some principles. So overall, I am ambivalent about the book, appreciating much of it, while maintaining my concerns and critiques.
Keith Mathison’s review at Ligonier is helpful. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...
But it also had some points where I think VanDrunen made some significant missteps, and actually went too far in the other direction: specifically (1) in arguing for Christ as the second Adam who completely fulfilled the cultural mandate (fulfilling God’s law *for* believers; justification), he seemed to leave no room for the fulfillment of God’s law *in* believers (sanctification). In other words, not only does Christ keep the covenant of works for us (instead of us, on our behalf), but then as believers Christ now also enables us to perform the law, not as a means of justification but as the growth of sanctification. It seems then that the believers' current call to cultural engagement (fulfilling the cultural mandate) does not, therefore, jeopardize Christ’s finished work and justification by faith alone, as VanDrunen argues, but would fit within the category of sanctification—the image of God progressively renewed in believers (Col 3); (2) VanDrunen makes too sharp of a distinction between the original and new creation. Rather than seeing the new creation as the renewal and restoration of this creation, he seems instead to view it as a replacement, thus discounting that our current work to care for creation and culture could reflect, be a byproduct of, or have any continuity with Christ’s work of restoring creation (his new creation).
I still think VanDrunen’s work is worth reading; but I would encourage doing so critically, aware of these missteps. I can understand why some have negatively characterized this school of thought as a “radical” Two Kingdoms theology (R2K)--I see that. There are some oddly extreme (reductionistic) applications of some principles. So overall, I am ambivalent about the book, appreciating much of it, while maintaining my concerns and critiques.
Keith Mathison’s review at Ligonier is helpful. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...
April 25, 2022
Very thorough primer on two-kingdoms theology. I find VanDrunen's presentation compelling and hard to think otherwise. Parts 1 and 2 were very formative in building a foundation for understanding the fulfillment/covenant narrative that stretches throughout scripture (First Adam, Last Adam, Noahic covenant, common kingdom, redemptive kingdom...) The chapter on the Church was also very helpful. It provided great clarity on a faithful understanding of church which I have been sorely inconsistent with. :(
Other notes:
-Doug Wil's criticism of Two Kingdoms
(Honestly, I'm not steeped into this world enough to get what's going on but I guess I know enough to know he won't be camped here)
-I have NT Wright's Surprised by Hope on my shelf untouched so I'd like to see how it weighs up against some of VanDrunen's criticism
-One thing I'm a bit concerned about is I have too much of a bias toward a certain type of perspective... (unrelated comment but this is tainting my enjoyment of CS Lewis which is so sad rip)
-Now that I'm aware of this and have some of the concepts fleshed out in my mind, I think I might be able to tackle some of the historical side of things and see how this doctrine was worked out among the Reformers. Definitely, something on my bucket list to do a deep dive into!! :)
-finally, one complaint: gosh the font choice for the chapter sentence heading is tacky, who comes up with these... (I'm looking at you too, weird typewriter font in Butterfield's housekey book)
Other notes:
-Doug Wil's criticism of Two Kingdoms
(Honestly, I'm not steeped into this world enough to get what's going on but I guess I know enough to know he won't be camped here)
-I have NT Wright's Surprised by Hope on my shelf untouched so I'd like to see how it weighs up against some of VanDrunen's criticism
-One thing I'm a bit concerned about is I have too much of a bias toward a certain type of perspective... (unrelated comment but this is tainting my enjoyment of CS Lewis which is so sad rip)
-Now that I'm aware of this and have some of the concepts fleshed out in my mind, I think I might be able to tackle some of the historical side of things and see how this doctrine was worked out among the Reformers. Definitely, something on my bucket list to do a deep dive into!! :)
-finally, one complaint: gosh the font choice for the chapter sentence heading is tacky, who comes up with these... (I'm looking at you too, weird typewriter font in Butterfield's housekey book)
June 1, 2021
VanDrunen provides a quality introduction to understanding the two kingdoms viewpoint. He effectively lays out the biblical framework in which these two viewpoints develop. There are two kingdoms: the common kingdom established through the Noahic Covenant and the redemptive kingdom established through the Abrahamic Covenant. As Christians, we live within both kingdoms. The difficulty comes in navigating what aspects of life are in each kingdom. VanDrunen argues that the redemptive kingdom pertains the church while the common kingdom pertains to that which falls outside of the confines of the church and it’s authority. Overall, I think this is a helpful introduction to the topic. Though I am still left with many questions when it comes to how this practically applies to the Christians life. The last chapter begins to answer my questions as he addresses how two kingdoms informs our view on education, vocation, and politics. His chapter just scratches the surface on these issues though. I believe he has other books that address these issues in more depth so I will realistically read those as well.
August 16, 2017
This book is a defence of the "Two Kingdoms" view of how Christians are to live in this world and relate to the surrounding culture.
VanDrunen argues against the idea that legitimate cultural activities are redeemed through the gospel. Whereas Al Wolters wrote a very helpful book called Creation Regained, VanDrunen sees his position as being "Re-Creation Gained": "Our cultural activities do not in any sense usher in the new creation. The new creation has been earned and attained once for all by Christ, the last Adam" (p. 28).
VanDrunen does not believe that the creation mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 still applies to Christians today; instead, Jesus has fulfilled Adam's obligations on our behalf (p. 50). Christ "does not restore us to Adam's original task but takes us to where Adam was supposed to arrive" (p. 59).
VanDrunen sees Christians and living in two kingdoms, each ruled by God. The first he calls the "common kingdom", and includes every human being. This is regulated by the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9, but not, for example, by the Ten Commandments. The second he calls the "redemptive kingdom", and is to be identified with the church: "the church is the only institution or community in the present world that can be identified with the kingdom proclaimed by Christ" (p. 101). This is virtually the Roman Catholic view, although VanDrunen later clarifies this by saying that the church is not identical to the kingdom (p. 116). "Identified with" but not "identical to" is, however, a rather subtle distinction.
VanDrunen concedes that "the New Testament does not say explicitly that God still rules the broader cultural life of this world through the Noahic covenant," (p. 118) but suggests that "it does not have to" since it was to be a perpetual covenant: "while earth remains" (Gen 8:22). VanDrunen labours under the disadvantage of being forced to invent terminology: the Bible never refers to the "common kingdom".
In practical terms, this means Christians should not try to "take over" or "take back" politics or education (p. 125). Instead, we should see ourselves as exiles, just like the Israelites in Babylon.
VanDrunen writes very well, and his writing is saturated with Scripture. I appreciate his emphasis on the uniqueness of Christ and his high view of the church. Were it not for some obvious drawbacks, I would have been convinced of his view.
Firstly, VanDrunen virtually ignores the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20). There, Jesus instructs his disciples in a way that is reminiscent of God's words in Genesis 1:26-28. Now it's quite clear that VanDrunen doesn't view it as supplementing or expanding the creation mandate, but it's disappointing that he does not deal with the text at all. The clear link between creation mandate and Great Commission is a significant argument against VanDrunen's thesis.
Secondly, in regards to education, VanDrunen argues that theology is the province of the redemptive kingdom, and all other areas of study belong to the common kingdom (p. 174). This does not account, however, for subjects on the borderline, such as church history. Is this something the church can teach, or not? It appears that VanDrunen's distinction between the two kingdoms may be rather artificial.
Individual parts of this book are, however, excellent, and I can endorse many of VanDrunen's conclusions while disagreeing with his thesis. For example, he rightly points out that "the church, acting officially through its deacons, has authority to do only the kind of diaconal work that Christ, speaking in Scripture, authorizes it to do" (p. 157). I can agree with that, precisely because I see a distinction between church and kingdom: there are works of service and cultural activities that constitute kingdom work but not church work. The church should focus on the ministry that Christ has specifically called her to do, but the work of Christians (both individually and in groups) goes far beyond that.
Living in God's Two Kingdoms almost persuaded me, but not quite.
VanDrunen argues against the idea that legitimate cultural activities are redeemed through the gospel. Whereas Al Wolters wrote a very helpful book called Creation Regained, VanDrunen sees his position as being "Re-Creation Gained": "Our cultural activities do not in any sense usher in the new creation. The new creation has been earned and attained once for all by Christ, the last Adam" (p. 28).
VanDrunen does not believe that the creation mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 still applies to Christians today; instead, Jesus has fulfilled Adam's obligations on our behalf (p. 50). Christ "does not restore us to Adam's original task but takes us to where Adam was supposed to arrive" (p. 59).
VanDrunen sees Christians and living in two kingdoms, each ruled by God. The first he calls the "common kingdom", and includes every human being. This is regulated by the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9, but not, for example, by the Ten Commandments. The second he calls the "redemptive kingdom", and is to be identified with the church: "the church is the only institution or community in the present world that can be identified with the kingdom proclaimed by Christ" (p. 101). This is virtually the Roman Catholic view, although VanDrunen later clarifies this by saying that the church is not identical to the kingdom (p. 116). "Identified with" but not "identical to" is, however, a rather subtle distinction.
VanDrunen concedes that "the New Testament does not say explicitly that God still rules the broader cultural life of this world through the Noahic covenant," (p. 118) but suggests that "it does not have to" since it was to be a perpetual covenant: "while earth remains" (Gen 8:22). VanDrunen labours under the disadvantage of being forced to invent terminology: the Bible never refers to the "common kingdom".
In practical terms, this means Christians should not try to "take over" or "take back" politics or education (p. 125). Instead, we should see ourselves as exiles, just like the Israelites in Babylon.
VanDrunen writes very well, and his writing is saturated with Scripture. I appreciate his emphasis on the uniqueness of Christ and his high view of the church. Were it not for some obvious drawbacks, I would have been convinced of his view.
Firstly, VanDrunen virtually ignores the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20). There, Jesus instructs his disciples in a way that is reminiscent of God's words in Genesis 1:26-28. Now it's quite clear that VanDrunen doesn't view it as supplementing or expanding the creation mandate, but it's disappointing that he does not deal with the text at all. The clear link between creation mandate and Great Commission is a significant argument against VanDrunen's thesis.
Secondly, in regards to education, VanDrunen argues that theology is the province of the redemptive kingdom, and all other areas of study belong to the common kingdom (p. 174). This does not account, however, for subjects on the borderline, such as church history. Is this something the church can teach, or not? It appears that VanDrunen's distinction between the two kingdoms may be rather artificial.
Individual parts of this book are, however, excellent, and I can endorse many of VanDrunen's conclusions while disagreeing with his thesis. For example, he rightly points out that "the church, acting officially through its deacons, has authority to do only the kind of diaconal work that Christ, speaking in Scripture, authorizes it to do" (p. 157). I can agree with that, precisely because I see a distinction between church and kingdom: there are works of service and cultural activities that constitute kingdom work but not church work. The church should focus on the ministry that Christ has specifically called her to do, but the work of Christians (both individually and in groups) goes far beyond that.
Living in God's Two Kingdoms almost persuaded me, but not quite.
May 30, 2023
This is a thoughtful exposition of the doctrine of two kingdoms, here called the common and redemptive kingdoms. It seems to me this book stands in contrast to this age’s tendencies to extremes of position on many matters. Much of what undergirds the thinking in this book, in addition to thoughts about the redemptive kingdom being heavily rooted in the Sermon on the Mount (as it ought to be), seems to me to arise in a robust understanding of the doctrine of common grace. I don’t agree with every word he’s written here, but I do find his framework to be compatible with a Scriptural and thoroughly New Testament understanding of the kingdom as it functions in this present age.
December 7, 2024
Very good.
March 2, 2021
I really enjoyed reading this book, and I think Christians would do well to consider its arguments even if they don't end up agreeing with the conclusions. VanDrunen is an excellent writer in my estimation, mostly because I appreciate his style: sections begin with a short preliminary roadmap of the arguments ahead, detailed arguments are formed in the middle, and a short piece concludes each section to restate the main points and important conclusions. I suppose that this is a common way to write, but his execution is better than that of many other books I have read where it is easy to get lost in the argument and its contribution to the entire thesis.
VanDrunen is writing to assert the Reformed Two Kingdoms (R2K) perspective, which advocates a Christian approach to culture that is joyful, but measured. In our vocations and activities, we are to honor God and participate in common activities with humility, diligence, and dignity, but we are also to do so with a detachment and a preference for that which is "above." In the introduction, VanDrunen notes that his view concerning culture is an alternative to the "transformationist" perspective found among Neo-Calvinists, those like NT Wright who believe in the New Perspective on Paul, and the Emerging Church. While Neo-Calvinists might strenuously object to being included in that list, the point of connection, according to VanDrunen, is their belief that our current cultural activities will be redeemed, which I think may be shortly summarized by the statement, "All cultural labor is kingdom work" (19). This assertion is fundamental to the disagreement between this view and the R2K view.
In direct contrast to a transformational model of eschatology, VanDrunen’s argument for the complete end of the present natural order on pages 66-71 is really helpful in my opinion. His argument harmonizes well with my reading of the New Testament. From 2 Peter 3, it does seem that our cultural works experience the same destruction as the rest of the natural order when it is dissolved by fire. Paul's teaching repeatedly emphasizes the temporary nature of that which is below, part of what VanDrunen calls the common kingdom, and the surpassing value of that which is heavenly, or part of what VanDrunen calls the redemptive kingdom. Finally, our Lord compares the days before his next coming to those before Noah had completed the ark, where people are engaged in regular cultural activities until all of it is radically swept away. The point of continuity between the current natural order and the new creation is the believers of the redemptive kingdom, who will receive new bodies and participate in the perfect world-to-come, thus fulfilling the destiny that should have been attained by the first Adam, according to VanDrunen's argument, but was actually purchased by the second Adam in his perfect life, death, and resurrection for all those He came to redeem.
At this point, VanDrunen moves to a biblical overview of how God's people approach cultural activities in a world marked by sin. This involves lengthy discussions about biblical covenants, which I think are some of the highlights of this book. The main point is that, while living in this world, believers are to live in spiritual antithesis while sharing cultural commonality with their neighbors. The redemptive kingdom began in the covenant of grace and was formally established by the Abrahamic Covenant, which will reach final fulfillment in the world-to-come. Until that time, the Church, VanDrunen argues, is the penultimate fulfillment of the redemptive kingdom. The key point made here is that it is only the church that may be identified with the kingdom of God. The Church has been given "the keys of the kingdom" and lives in purity according to the ethic prescribed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. I found pages 103-106 to be particularly encouraging as it relates to the Church and the promises that belong to her.
While the Church has specific aims under the direction of her Lord, individual Christians participate in the world under what VanDrunen has named the "common kingdom." While the "redemptive kingdom" was formally established in the Abrahamic Covenant, the "common kingdom" was formally established in the Noahic Covenant. God relates to all people, believers and unbelievers alike, in the common kingdom according to his promises in the Noahic Covenant. One of the implications of this is that believers are supposed to participate with unbelievers in common cultural tasks until the present world comes to an end. VanDrunen observes that this covenant does not make promises to or demands of the redeemed specifically, but rather this covenant is made to all mankind. There is a considerable amount of weight placed on this covenant, since the basis for the common kingdom rests on relatively few verses. It is my understanding that this has been a primary source of criticism, which should be considered thoughtfully as well. However, I do think that VanDrunen provides quite a few good biblical examples to show how this principle plays out according to God's will.
For one, it is really helpful to see the stark contrast between the redemptive kingdom and the common kingdom in the Babylonian captivity. In Babylon, the principles of R2K are illustrated by God’s command for Israel to seek the welfare of their pagan captors’ city, because in so doing they would find their own welfare as well, even though they were promised to return to their land in a short time thereafter. Though they are being oppressed and living as exiles, they were to engage in the daily life of their present location away from their homeland. Daniel and his friends are perfect exemplars of this principle. The New Testament designates believers as sojourners, and thus this type of approach, though not necessarily directly parallel to our current situation, is to mark contemporary Christian cultural engagement. Christ is Lord of both kingdoms, but he relates to both of them differently according to different covenants. The order of the present age for believers is governed by cultural commonality and spiritual antithesis with those in the common kingdom.
Even if you don't agree with this model for Christian engagement with the world, all Christians would benefit from his discussion about the Church. Life in the Church is the Christian’s primary responsibility and focus. We should not get too caught up in the things of the common kingdom at the expense of the things of God in the Church. Corporate worship is mandated by God and particularly honors him, so we should place substantial importance on our activities in our local churches. One part of the book that really interested me comes when VanDrunnen objects to the way modern Christians so willingly participate in common kingdom activities on the Lord’s Day. He has some fairly convincing Sabbatarian objections to our behavior, and I think it is good to think about. In the discussion of the Sabbath, there was an amazing part where he discusses the Sabbaths and the Jubilee and how these types are fulfilled in Christ. It's really beautiful to think about and reinvigorated my love for the Bible.
In addition, the points about the spirituality of the church and the magisterial authority of the church were really helpful and need to be clarified in the church today. Christians should be careful to recognize that other Christians have liberty where Scripture does not speak, and church leaders should not bind consciences on issues that are not directly spoken to in Scripture. We should be very precise to maintain biblical distinctions of authority.
Although I really enjoyed reading this book, I have to say that I was disappointed with the treatment of political questions. I think the Bible speaks more to our common actions than he is giving credit for. Members of the redemptive kingdom are to live righteous and holy lives even in the common kingdom, which he rightfully asserts as well. Christ is Lord in all circumstances. While it is valuable and true to say that Christians have spent too much time, effort, and energy conflating particular political programs with faithful Christianity, I don’t think he sufficiently proves his point that there are many political positions even for the most substantial moral questions that may be held by faithful Christians in honest disagreement. The issue of abortion and civil justice left too many questions unanswered in my mind. In our voting or political activity, is it possible that we are “giving approval to that which is evil”? How does he deal with complicity in evil? There is grave concern in the church today, particularly among Black brothers and sisters, that the Church has abused doctrines such as the "spirituality of the Church" to remain silent on issues pertaining to justice in society. How should a church respond to justice issues under the R2K paradigm? He may have good answers to these and many other questions, but the principles he provides are so limited and provide such broad ranges of interpretation that almost any Christian could appeal to liberty in any situation involving politics. It doesn’t really resolve any conflict, but just asserts that the conflict can exist. This is a good corrective for many circumstances, but I hesitate to say that it should apply to all questions.
Overall, this book has a lot going for it, and I really did enjoy reading it. I intend to read more of his writing to understand his positions in greater detail. Though I may not agree with all of his positions or in his wide extensions of the Noahic Covenant, I still think this book is helpful to read and can be very encouraging to all Christians. There are many faithful criticisms, and these should be considered as well, including Keith Mathison's, which I would recommend reading on Ligonier's website.
VanDrunen is writing to assert the Reformed Two Kingdoms (R2K) perspective, which advocates a Christian approach to culture that is joyful, but measured. In our vocations and activities, we are to honor God and participate in common activities with humility, diligence, and dignity, but we are also to do so with a detachment and a preference for that which is "above." In the introduction, VanDrunen notes that his view concerning culture is an alternative to the "transformationist" perspective found among Neo-Calvinists, those like NT Wright who believe in the New Perspective on Paul, and the Emerging Church. While Neo-Calvinists might strenuously object to being included in that list, the point of connection, according to VanDrunen, is their belief that our current cultural activities will be redeemed, which I think may be shortly summarized by the statement, "All cultural labor is kingdom work" (19). This assertion is fundamental to the disagreement between this view and the R2K view.
In direct contrast to a transformational model of eschatology, VanDrunen’s argument for the complete end of the present natural order on pages 66-71 is really helpful in my opinion. His argument harmonizes well with my reading of the New Testament. From 2 Peter 3, it does seem that our cultural works experience the same destruction as the rest of the natural order when it is dissolved by fire. Paul's teaching repeatedly emphasizes the temporary nature of that which is below, part of what VanDrunen calls the common kingdom, and the surpassing value of that which is heavenly, or part of what VanDrunen calls the redemptive kingdom. Finally, our Lord compares the days before his next coming to those before Noah had completed the ark, where people are engaged in regular cultural activities until all of it is radically swept away. The point of continuity between the current natural order and the new creation is the believers of the redemptive kingdom, who will receive new bodies and participate in the perfect world-to-come, thus fulfilling the destiny that should have been attained by the first Adam, according to VanDrunen's argument, but was actually purchased by the second Adam in his perfect life, death, and resurrection for all those He came to redeem.
At this point, VanDrunen moves to a biblical overview of how God's people approach cultural activities in a world marked by sin. This involves lengthy discussions about biblical covenants, which I think are some of the highlights of this book. The main point is that, while living in this world, believers are to live in spiritual antithesis while sharing cultural commonality with their neighbors. The redemptive kingdom began in the covenant of grace and was formally established by the Abrahamic Covenant, which will reach final fulfillment in the world-to-come. Until that time, the Church, VanDrunen argues, is the penultimate fulfillment of the redemptive kingdom. The key point made here is that it is only the church that may be identified with the kingdom of God. The Church has been given "the keys of the kingdom" and lives in purity according to the ethic prescribed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. I found pages 103-106 to be particularly encouraging as it relates to the Church and the promises that belong to her.
While the Church has specific aims under the direction of her Lord, individual Christians participate in the world under what VanDrunen has named the "common kingdom." While the "redemptive kingdom" was formally established in the Abrahamic Covenant, the "common kingdom" was formally established in the Noahic Covenant. God relates to all people, believers and unbelievers alike, in the common kingdom according to his promises in the Noahic Covenant. One of the implications of this is that believers are supposed to participate with unbelievers in common cultural tasks until the present world comes to an end. VanDrunen observes that this covenant does not make promises to or demands of the redeemed specifically, but rather this covenant is made to all mankind. There is a considerable amount of weight placed on this covenant, since the basis for the common kingdom rests on relatively few verses. It is my understanding that this has been a primary source of criticism, which should be considered thoughtfully as well. However, I do think that VanDrunen provides quite a few good biblical examples to show how this principle plays out according to God's will.
For one, it is really helpful to see the stark contrast between the redemptive kingdom and the common kingdom in the Babylonian captivity. In Babylon, the principles of R2K are illustrated by God’s command for Israel to seek the welfare of their pagan captors’ city, because in so doing they would find their own welfare as well, even though they were promised to return to their land in a short time thereafter. Though they are being oppressed and living as exiles, they were to engage in the daily life of their present location away from their homeland. Daniel and his friends are perfect exemplars of this principle. The New Testament designates believers as sojourners, and thus this type of approach, though not necessarily directly parallel to our current situation, is to mark contemporary Christian cultural engagement. Christ is Lord of both kingdoms, but he relates to both of them differently according to different covenants. The order of the present age for believers is governed by cultural commonality and spiritual antithesis with those in the common kingdom.
Even if you don't agree with this model for Christian engagement with the world, all Christians would benefit from his discussion about the Church. Life in the Church is the Christian’s primary responsibility and focus. We should not get too caught up in the things of the common kingdom at the expense of the things of God in the Church. Corporate worship is mandated by God and particularly honors him, so we should place substantial importance on our activities in our local churches. One part of the book that really interested me comes when VanDrunnen objects to the way modern Christians so willingly participate in common kingdom activities on the Lord’s Day. He has some fairly convincing Sabbatarian objections to our behavior, and I think it is good to think about. In the discussion of the Sabbath, there was an amazing part where he discusses the Sabbaths and the Jubilee and how these types are fulfilled in Christ. It's really beautiful to think about and reinvigorated my love for the Bible.
In addition, the points about the spirituality of the church and the magisterial authority of the church were really helpful and need to be clarified in the church today. Christians should be careful to recognize that other Christians have liberty where Scripture does not speak, and church leaders should not bind consciences on issues that are not directly spoken to in Scripture. We should be very precise to maintain biblical distinctions of authority.
Although I really enjoyed reading this book, I have to say that I was disappointed with the treatment of political questions. I think the Bible speaks more to our common actions than he is giving credit for. Members of the redemptive kingdom are to live righteous and holy lives even in the common kingdom, which he rightfully asserts as well. Christ is Lord in all circumstances. While it is valuable and true to say that Christians have spent too much time, effort, and energy conflating particular political programs with faithful Christianity, I don’t think he sufficiently proves his point that there are many political positions even for the most substantial moral questions that may be held by faithful Christians in honest disagreement. The issue of abortion and civil justice left too many questions unanswered in my mind. In our voting or political activity, is it possible that we are “giving approval to that which is evil”? How does he deal with complicity in evil? There is grave concern in the church today, particularly among Black brothers and sisters, that the Church has abused doctrines such as the "spirituality of the Church" to remain silent on issues pertaining to justice in society. How should a church respond to justice issues under the R2K paradigm? He may have good answers to these and many other questions, but the principles he provides are so limited and provide such broad ranges of interpretation that almost any Christian could appeal to liberty in any situation involving politics. It doesn’t really resolve any conflict, but just asserts that the conflict can exist. This is a good corrective for many circumstances, but I hesitate to say that it should apply to all questions.
Overall, this book has a lot going for it, and I really did enjoy reading it. I intend to read more of his writing to understand his positions in greater detail. Though I may not agree with all of his positions or in his wide extensions of the Noahic Covenant, I still think this book is helpful to read and can be very encouraging to all Christians. There are many faithful criticisms, and these should be considered as well, including Keith Mathison's, which I would recommend reading on Ligonier's website.
December 30, 2021
Hard to argue with the Bible.
July 7, 2022
(I am writing this review 3 or 4 months after reading the book, and I don't have a copy to refer to, so my comments here may be slightly off.)
This is a popular-level book, not one that lays down a detailed scholarly argument to support its conclusions, so its possible I might have a different response if I had read one of VanDrunen's other books, like "Divine Covenants and Moral Order." But if this is what his perspective looks like when boiled down to its popular prescription, I'm doubtful that would help.
VanDrunen's argument here is that the Reformed doctrine of God's Two Kingdoms (R2K as his version has come to be known) describes (1) the Church and the wider secular society, and (2) that these are fundamentally separate kingdoms/spheres, with different rules and authorities, and they should more or less never interact. He argues this primarily to reject the visions of Kuyperian neo-Calvinist and N.T. Wright-style "transformationalists," who seem to think the Church should try to transform the world with the Gospel. For VanDrunen, the Gospel is spiritual only, offering salvation for souls in the church, and to talk of the Gospel and society together is to confuse the kingdoms. I do not believe this is the historic Reformed doctrine at all, and while VanDrunen identifies some excesses and woolly thinking among the transformationalists, I would still prefer their framing to his.
The book is almost purely Biblicist in its argument, attempting to ground everything in direct Scriptural command while quoting non-Biblical sources maybe 5 times. VanDrunen acknowledges the need for a Protestant doctrine of Natural Law (he has been admirably calling for this for years), but he appears to ground it almost entirely in God's covenant with Noah in Genesis 9. I can accept this as a brief summary of Natural Law, but suggesting that this is the point when Natural Law is established, as he seems to do, is catastrophic. If that's the case, then Natural Law is entirely contractual, rather than being built into the structure of the universe! But perhaps I misunderstood him here, and he only meant this is the point God authorizes human beings to enforce the pre-existing Natural Law through civil government. I still don't think that quite works; the family structure necessitates some form of human rule-making and discipline from Genesis 4 on, and there are said to be cities before the Flood. Government is more basic to human nature than VanDrunen allows.
Furthermore, most historic Reformed theologians also included the Ten Commandments as a summary of the Natural Law which Christian magistrates ought to enforce, but VanDrunen cuts himself off from that by regarding everything about the nation of Israel, from Sinai until the Babylonian exile, as a special exception to the Two Kingdoms paradigm. Israel as a covenant nation is not like any other nation, nor is it even really like the NT Church, but a special symbolic representation of what the New Heavens and Earth will be like, therefore we can't use any examples from Israel when discussing Church or State today. This is just dumb. It's more or less a cheat code to get around the giant flaw in his reading of the OT, and it's far too absolute a rule to maintain in other theological discussions.
Finally, when he starts describing the Church in the NT, VanDrunen emphasizes the spirituality of the church to a radical degree. For him, the church is more or less entirely the invisible church, with the only visible aspects being the worship assembly, the sacraments, and the ministers (who he appears to regard as jure divino Presbyterian). Anything else is extraneous to his understanding of the church, and he takes this to wild extremes. According to VanDrunen, for a church to administer a soup kitchen in its basement to the surrounding community would be an infringement on the Civil Kingdom and therefore wrong! The church is for the baptized people of God alone! He allows that of course Christians should serve their community, and church members could get together and start a charity that serves soup--but even this probably shouldn't be called a "Christian" charity organization, because the adjective Christian can only refer to churches, individuals, or works of theology, we shouldn't be applying it to things in the wider society. This is, again, dumb, even offensive, and has virtually nothing to do with historic Christian practice.
I just don't see this book as helpful or worth recommending at all.
This is a popular-level book, not one that lays down a detailed scholarly argument to support its conclusions, so its possible I might have a different response if I had read one of VanDrunen's other books, like "Divine Covenants and Moral Order." But if this is what his perspective looks like when boiled down to its popular prescription, I'm doubtful that would help.
VanDrunen's argument here is that the Reformed doctrine of God's Two Kingdoms (R2K as his version has come to be known) describes (1) the Church and the wider secular society, and (2) that these are fundamentally separate kingdoms/spheres, with different rules and authorities, and they should more or less never interact. He argues this primarily to reject the visions of Kuyperian neo-Calvinist and N.T. Wright-style "transformationalists," who seem to think the Church should try to transform the world with the Gospel. For VanDrunen, the Gospel is spiritual only, offering salvation for souls in the church, and to talk of the Gospel and society together is to confuse the kingdoms. I do not believe this is the historic Reformed doctrine at all, and while VanDrunen identifies some excesses and woolly thinking among the transformationalists, I would still prefer their framing to his.
The book is almost purely Biblicist in its argument, attempting to ground everything in direct Scriptural command while quoting non-Biblical sources maybe 5 times. VanDrunen acknowledges the need for a Protestant doctrine of Natural Law (he has been admirably calling for this for years), but he appears to ground it almost entirely in God's covenant with Noah in Genesis 9. I can accept this as a brief summary of Natural Law, but suggesting that this is the point when Natural Law is established, as he seems to do, is catastrophic. If that's the case, then Natural Law is entirely contractual, rather than being built into the structure of the universe! But perhaps I misunderstood him here, and he only meant this is the point God authorizes human beings to enforce the pre-existing Natural Law through civil government. I still don't think that quite works; the family structure necessitates some form of human rule-making and discipline from Genesis 4 on, and there are said to be cities before the Flood. Government is more basic to human nature than VanDrunen allows.
Furthermore, most historic Reformed theologians also included the Ten Commandments as a summary of the Natural Law which Christian magistrates ought to enforce, but VanDrunen cuts himself off from that by regarding everything about the nation of Israel, from Sinai until the Babylonian exile, as a special exception to the Two Kingdoms paradigm. Israel as a covenant nation is not like any other nation, nor is it even really like the NT Church, but a special symbolic representation of what the New Heavens and Earth will be like, therefore we can't use any examples from Israel when discussing Church or State today. This is just dumb. It's more or less a cheat code to get around the giant flaw in his reading of the OT, and it's far too absolute a rule to maintain in other theological discussions.
Finally, when he starts describing the Church in the NT, VanDrunen emphasizes the spirituality of the church to a radical degree. For him, the church is more or less entirely the invisible church, with the only visible aspects being the worship assembly, the sacraments, and the ministers (who he appears to regard as jure divino Presbyterian). Anything else is extraneous to his understanding of the church, and he takes this to wild extremes. According to VanDrunen, for a church to administer a soup kitchen in its basement to the surrounding community would be an infringement on the Civil Kingdom and therefore wrong! The church is for the baptized people of God alone! He allows that of course Christians should serve their community, and church members could get together and start a charity that serves soup--but even this probably shouldn't be called a "Christian" charity organization, because the adjective Christian can only refer to churches, individuals, or works of theology, we shouldn't be applying it to things in the wider society. This is, again, dumb, even offensive, and has virtually nothing to do with historic Christian practice.
I just don't see this book as helpful or worth recommending at all.
December 17, 2013
As the subtitle states, this book concerns Christianity and culture. But specifically, Dr. Van Drunen intends to respond to the popular 'redemption/redeeming culture' or transformationalist movement in Christianity today. This movement seeks to 'redeem' culture for the glory of God, transform society through social work, seeing all of life as 'kingdom duty' for the Christian, etc. (Personally, I have been influenced by some of this teaching through my reading -and normally, enjoying of- NT Wright, Tim Keller, and others within that circle.) To this, Van Drunen has authored a devastating critique. As one who has sat under him at Westminster Seminary, his writing very closely resembles his lectures. The book is very carefully written, and his argument is very firmly rooted in scripture after scripture. He is gracious in frequently mentioning the positive impact of such teaching (such as how it has properly exposed escapism, a Christian's seclusion from society, etc.), but his general thesis is going to be pretty difficult to assail. I found it eye-opening, challenging, and an enjoyable read altogether. But with all of that said, here are a few critiques, though nothing that keeps me from giving it 5 stars: 1) It is repetitive at times. He repeats the terminology so many times (ex: 'common kingdom') that it becomes a bit annoying for the reader. 2) He makes a number of giant theological leaps throughout. Almost all of them I agree with (more on this below), but the average reader is going to be left scratching their head. It seems as though it is best geared towards a seminary audience or someone who has had formal training of some sort in biblical interpretation. So it is not a real accessible work. I understand that this isn't meant to be a full treatise, but some people are going to read and walk away unconvinced because he just doesn't provide enough evidence in this work for some of his theological conclusions. 3) Theological inconsistencies as a paedobaptist. Now understand, I love my paedobaptist brothers. I am a Baptist that attends a paedobaptist seminary. I don't at all mind when an author talks about paedobaptism. But in this book, there were points where his paedobaptism was clearly inconsistent with his thesis. In fact, a light dawned as I read it, understanding now why so many paedobaptists are so vehemently critical of him and 2KT. I'll just mention two for the sake of space: first, his entire argument is built on the fact that the Noahic covenant governs the common kingdom while the Abrahamic covenant governs the redemptive kingdom (the church). He repeatedly, again and again and again, goes back to the Abrahamic covenant in explaining how it is both different than the common kingdom as well as different from the temporary Mosaic institution. That is, that the church now, in the Covenant of Grace, is modeled after the Abrahamic covenant. But he never deals with the fact that there are 'common' and/or Mosaic elements in the Abrahamic covenant (such as, the land promised to Abraham, and of course the physical children). He would've been much better of demonstrating how it is the NEW covenant that stands in contrast with the Noahic covenant of common kingdom. Here, in my opinion, he seriously hurt his overall thesis. Some of the conclusions he draws by appealing to Abraham are glaringly inconsistent, even though I agree with his conclusions (just not all his reasoning for them based upon the Abrahamic covenant!). Another area of inconsistency is when he clearly identifies families as part of the 'common kingdom'. To see him try to dance around that and still argue for infant inclusion in the redemptive kingdom was a bit amusing. This point is another glaring inconsistency, in my opinion. Marriage, families, having children, are part of the common kingdom, and yet infants of believers are baptized? And this based upon the Abrahamic covenant which is the redemptive kingdom? This was hard to accept. But all in all, as long as the reader is aware of these things, I highly recommend this book. One of the very best I've read on the issue!
December 24, 2014
I gave this book two stars instead of one because it does a reasonable job of summarizing the two kingdoms approach to the life of the Christian. However, if it was intended to be an apologetic for the position, it was relatively unsuccessful.
First, a significant part of VanDrunen's argumentation rests on portions of scripture to which he grants inordinate and dubious theological significance. His reliance on the Noahic covenant, for example, as a proof-text for the existence of his version of a "common kingdom" seems to have as little New Testament support as anything he critiques. Another example is his use of the books of 1 Peter and James to suggest that all Christians are refugees and exiles in diaspora. This would make more sense if the passages he quoted weren't addressed to specific groups of Christians who were actually in physical exile, and actually dispersed because of persecution. Nothing in the passages he quotes suggests that Christians will always and forever be in exile in the so-called "common kingdom" until Jesus decides to actually begin reigning on the earth.
Second, VanDrunen's suggestion that only matters within the sphere of the church have the significance of being involved in the Kingdom of God seems to miss the notion that all things are under Christ's feet. Not only are we to do all to the glory of God, but Christ is currently, actively sovereign over all things, both in the church and outside of it. To suggest that the work of the Christian plumber, while significant in some pragmatic capacity, is only only less significant than church work but completely INSIGNIFICANT to Christ's kingdom is just baffling to me. If this is the extent of the 2K position, it grates against me strongly, and doesn't seem to mesh with the scripture I am reading.
Third, VanDrunen never considers what would happen in a community that experienced great revival for Christ. What happens if, after you've finished the kingdom work that happens exclusively within the confines of our churches, our obedience to the Great Commission actually DOES disciple the nations? What if they are actually taught to observe all the things that Jesus commanded them? What would that look like? Of course, VanDrunen cannot consider this possibility, because all Christians are perpetual exiles and refugees. They could never have victory prior to the new creation, or live in a community that consisted predominately of believers. Nonsense.
Finally, VanDrunen dances around the issue of natural theology without ever actually getting into specifics. If the rulers of the common kingdom are indeed obligated to enforce justice, as VanDrunen suggests, this drives us to consider the definition of justice. Of course, if Christianity is true, all else is false, and justice is reflective of the nature and will of God. Anything that does not conform to his will and nature is not just. This means that all men in the common kingdom are obligated to obey God! How, then, can the common kingdom be obligated to obey God when it is not part of his kingdom? What does it look like for the common kingdom to enforce God's justice? What does it look like for a Christian to enforce God's justice in the civil realm, or can he really even do that? After all, Mr. Christian is an exile and a refugee. He has no business telling men in the common kingdom that they are specially obligated to God. They can work all that stuff out on their own.
Ultimately, VanDrunen's 2K theology is theologically untenable and pragmatically unworkable. At the end of it all, I'm still a stubborn transformationalist.
First, a significant part of VanDrunen's argumentation rests on portions of scripture to which he grants inordinate and dubious theological significance. His reliance on the Noahic covenant, for example, as a proof-text for the existence of his version of a "common kingdom" seems to have as little New Testament support as anything he critiques. Another example is his use of the books of 1 Peter and James to suggest that all Christians are refugees and exiles in diaspora. This would make more sense if the passages he quoted weren't addressed to specific groups of Christians who were actually in physical exile, and actually dispersed because of persecution. Nothing in the passages he quotes suggests that Christians will always and forever be in exile in the so-called "common kingdom" until Jesus decides to actually begin reigning on the earth.
Second, VanDrunen's suggestion that only matters within the sphere of the church have the significance of being involved in the Kingdom of God seems to miss the notion that all things are under Christ's feet. Not only are we to do all to the glory of God, but Christ is currently, actively sovereign over all things, both in the church and outside of it. To suggest that the work of the Christian plumber, while significant in some pragmatic capacity, is only only less significant than church work but completely INSIGNIFICANT to Christ's kingdom is just baffling to me. If this is the extent of the 2K position, it grates against me strongly, and doesn't seem to mesh with the scripture I am reading.
Third, VanDrunen never considers what would happen in a community that experienced great revival for Christ. What happens if, after you've finished the kingdom work that happens exclusively within the confines of our churches, our obedience to the Great Commission actually DOES disciple the nations? What if they are actually taught to observe all the things that Jesus commanded them? What would that look like? Of course, VanDrunen cannot consider this possibility, because all Christians are perpetual exiles and refugees. They could never have victory prior to the new creation, or live in a community that consisted predominately of believers. Nonsense.
Finally, VanDrunen dances around the issue of natural theology without ever actually getting into specifics. If the rulers of the common kingdom are indeed obligated to enforce justice, as VanDrunen suggests, this drives us to consider the definition of justice. Of course, if Christianity is true, all else is false, and justice is reflective of the nature and will of God. Anything that does not conform to his will and nature is not just. This means that all men in the common kingdom are obligated to obey God! How, then, can the common kingdom be obligated to obey God when it is not part of his kingdom? What does it look like for the common kingdom to enforce God's justice? What does it look like for a Christian to enforce God's justice in the civil realm, or can he really even do that? After all, Mr. Christian is an exile and a refugee. He has no business telling men in the common kingdom that they are specially obligated to God. They can work all that stuff out on their own.
Ultimately, VanDrunen's 2K theology is theologically untenable and pragmatically unworkable. At the end of it all, I'm still a stubborn transformationalist.
March 2, 2012
This is a very readable book with a fairly thought-provoking message.
The book is clearly intended as a polemic for transformationalists in the Niebuhr / theonomic postmillenialist mold. VanDrunen separates all of life and cultural engagement into two kingdoms. The common kingdom is shared between believers and unbelievers (what we would typically call "culture") and the redemptive kingdom is the purview of believers alone.
Overall, this is an excellent starting point for combatting the transformationalist view. On the other hand, dividing life into separate spheres runs the risk of (1) implying cultural issues are more neutral than they actually are. Depravity fills and affects every part of life. (2) Might imply that life in the "common kingdom" is somehow separate from who we are as believers.
Still, I enjoyed this book greatly because it caused me to think about these issues more than I had in the past. I look forward to further ruminations.
Thoughts from Brian Collins:
I'd list the following as strengths:
Emphasis on the pilgrim character of God's people in the present evil age. We're sojourners, not transformers.
His emphasis on the church as central to God's plan for this age.
The call for modesty in claiming that certain ways of living are "the Christian way."
and the following as weaknesses:
reducing the creation mandate/blessing to the probationary test of Adam (as well as some odd statements about the imago dei).
attempt to ground two kingdoms in the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. Not exegetically convincing.
his identification of all culture with Babylon and the related insistence that redemption is replacement rather than restoration of creation.
the minimization of the antithesis that exists between Christians and non-Christians in parts of the cultural realm.
134-35 - "Some people today, with pious intentions, assert that all of life should be worship to God... but Scripture also speaks of a special activity that is more properly deemed "worship."
136-41 - good discussion of the theology of the Lord's Day.
149 - it has always been tempting to associate the church with a given nationality or people group or culture. Christians from anywhere in the world should be able to say amen to anything done in an American service. We should not confuse our Christianity with Americanism.
151 - the church should constantly ask itself whether it is taking on tasks that properly belong to civil institutions. The church is really a civil institution.
155 - helpful reminder that a church leader has a responsibility to not teach more specifically than Scripture itself does, even when attempting to be "practical."
The book is clearly intended as a polemic for transformationalists in the Niebuhr / theonomic postmillenialist mold. VanDrunen separates all of life and cultural engagement into two kingdoms. The common kingdom is shared between believers and unbelievers (what we would typically call "culture") and the redemptive kingdom is the purview of believers alone.
Overall, this is an excellent starting point for combatting the transformationalist view. On the other hand, dividing life into separate spheres runs the risk of (1) implying cultural issues are more neutral than they actually are. Depravity fills and affects every part of life. (2) Might imply that life in the "common kingdom" is somehow separate from who we are as believers.
Still, I enjoyed this book greatly because it caused me to think about these issues more than I had in the past. I look forward to further ruminations.
Thoughts from Brian Collins:
I'd list the following as strengths:
Emphasis on the pilgrim character of God's people in the present evil age. We're sojourners, not transformers.
His emphasis on the church as central to God's plan for this age.
The call for modesty in claiming that certain ways of living are "the Christian way."
and the following as weaknesses:
reducing the creation mandate/blessing to the probationary test of Adam (as well as some odd statements about the imago dei).
attempt to ground two kingdoms in the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. Not exegetically convincing.
his identification of all culture with Babylon and the related insistence that redemption is replacement rather than restoration of creation.
the minimization of the antithesis that exists between Christians and non-Christians in parts of the cultural realm.
134-35 - "Some people today, with pious intentions, assert that all of life should be worship to God... but Scripture also speaks of a special activity that is more properly deemed "worship."
136-41 - good discussion of the theology of the Lord's Day.
149 - it has always been tempting to associate the church with a given nationality or people group or culture. Christians from anywhere in the world should be able to say amen to anything done in an American service. We should not confuse our Christianity with Americanism.
151 - the church should constantly ask itself whether it is taking on tasks that properly belong to civil institutions. The church is really a civil institution.
155 - helpful reminder that a church leader has a responsibility to not teach more specifically than Scripture itself does, even when attempting to be "practical."
July 7, 2011
A bizarre and schizophrenic book. Begins with theological principles that are extremely controversial and ends with practical applications that are almost indisputably commonsensical--but which do not seem to follow from the theological principles. The former comprise a radical disjunction between creation and redemption, and between the work of God and the work of man, so that redemption has nothing to do with the redemption or restoration of this present world, and thus is not something that we are in any way called to participate in. Therefore, there is simply no calling for us to Christianize any aspects of our present worldly existence, or even to restore it to seek to restore it to its original created form with the aid of revelation. Consistently applied, it is hard for me to see how this paradigm would not simply make the notion of "Christian ethics" an oxymoron.
But thankfully, he doesn't consistently apply it. Instead, what he says is, essentially: by all means bring Scripture to bear on every area of life, and seek to pursue Christian morality and Christian presuppositions in politics, education, etc., but recognize that because the Bible does not offer detailed guidance on the particulars of these complex and ever-changing fields, we must rely largely on discretion, and may come to differing conclusions about how best to live out our faith in these areas of life, so we must avoid being judgmental toward other Christians on such subjects. Essentially, a Hookerian conclusion, but one drawn from principles that are radically opposed to Hooker's.
Another vexing thing is that VanDrunen does not really argue for his eccentric theological paradigm. To be sure, he develops it over several chapters with the aid of dozens of Scriptural proof-texts, but this isn't the same thing. For every one of the Scriptures he appeals to can, of course, be interpreted quite differently, and have been by opponents. VanDrunen makes no effort to justify his readings of the key Scriptural texts over against an interlocutor--say, N.T. Wright, whose Surprised by Hope is essentially the photo negative of this book--who has argued for a different interpretation. He merely plugs them in as proof-texts at the key points in his exposition, which essentially depends upon one little fallacious syllogism, repeated ad nauseam several times per chapter: Christ is the new Adam, therefore we are in no sense to be new Adams. Christ has fulfilled Adam's God-given task, therefore, we are not called to do it as well.
More extensive reviews to come on my blog.
But thankfully, he doesn't consistently apply it. Instead, what he says is, essentially: by all means bring Scripture to bear on every area of life, and seek to pursue Christian morality and Christian presuppositions in politics, education, etc., but recognize that because the Bible does not offer detailed guidance on the particulars of these complex and ever-changing fields, we must rely largely on discretion, and may come to differing conclusions about how best to live out our faith in these areas of life, so we must avoid being judgmental toward other Christians on such subjects. Essentially, a Hookerian conclusion, but one drawn from principles that are radically opposed to Hooker's.
Another vexing thing is that VanDrunen does not really argue for his eccentric theological paradigm. To be sure, he develops it over several chapters with the aid of dozens of Scriptural proof-texts, but this isn't the same thing. For every one of the Scriptures he appeals to can, of course, be interpreted quite differently, and have been by opponents. VanDrunen makes no effort to justify his readings of the key Scriptural texts over against an interlocutor--say, N.T. Wright, whose Surprised by Hope is essentially the photo negative of this book--who has argued for a different interpretation. He merely plugs them in as proof-texts at the key points in his exposition, which essentially depends upon one little fallacious syllogism, repeated ad nauseam several times per chapter: Christ is the new Adam, therefore we are in no sense to be new Adams. Christ has fulfilled Adam's God-given task, therefore, we are not called to do it as well.
More extensive reviews to come on my blog.
July 27, 2016
I've wanted to read this book for a long time because I've dwelled for far too long amongst the ignorant when it comes to the Reformed two kingdom debate.
First the positives. He is articulate, readable, and for the most part very charitable to those with whom he is writing against. I do not think he always understands his opponents, but he always makes an effort to. As I read this, especially the final section, I understood why it is so appealing. It is much easier on the Christian conscience to make a clean break between church and culture. I think this book would influence quite a few people (especially millennials) if it reached them.
After reading this I can confidently say that I disagree with his use of scripture, theology, and conclusions. There are very few times when reading a book where I have to vent to someone about my frustration, but this was one of them. His misunderstanding of the opposing side and consistently poor use of scripture are maddening. It should be noted that the seminary I attend is deeply entrenched in the opposite side of this debate so I am not a neutral party although I tried to give it a charitable read.
In the end I did learn quite a bit and in terms of how the book is written in terms of clarity, biblical faithfulness (in its aim), and theological coherence it deserves three or four stars. However, since I could find so little common ground with his views and was met with constant frustration I can't give it more than two.
First the positives. He is articulate, readable, and for the most part very charitable to those with whom he is writing against. I do not think he always understands his opponents, but he always makes an effort to. As I read this, especially the final section, I understood why it is so appealing. It is much easier on the Christian conscience to make a clean break between church and culture. I think this book would influence quite a few people (especially millennials) if it reached them.
After reading this I can confidently say that I disagree with his use of scripture, theology, and conclusions. There are very few times when reading a book where I have to vent to someone about my frustration, but this was one of them. His misunderstanding of the opposing side and consistently poor use of scripture are maddening. It should be noted that the seminary I attend is deeply entrenched in the opposite side of this debate so I am not a neutral party although I tried to give it a charitable read.
In the end I did learn quite a bit and in terms of how the book is written in terms of clarity, biblical faithfulness (in its aim), and theological coherence it deserves three or four stars. However, since I could find so little common ground with his views and was met with constant frustration I can't give it more than two.
March 18, 2013
How do Christians live in a culture that has a world view instead of a bibical view on topics of education, marriage, abortion, and work. Mr. VanDrunen starts a foundation in the covenants with God and his people. The covenant with Noah established a covenant with mankind that is practiced by all, a form of government, a form of education, a form of marriage. I appreciated the fact that how as Christians we must be careful not be dogmatic on issues that are not clear in the bible. Such as education. However, as parents we are ultimately responsible for our children's education. We just cannot expect others to feel the same way. Whether we homeschool or elect public education. I found it interesting in the area of politics how as christians, we push the Kingdom of redemption on those that are not receptive to the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Redemption is the completion of the Abram's covenant thru Jesus Christ. The read is more about learning the difference of mankind's covenant thru Noah and the redemption covenant finished with Jesus. I did find it informative and realized that there is more to learn and ponder living in two different cultures that clash. What is my response and to have an educated reponse in crucial.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews