The R2K Problem

We Calvinists can be, at times, the most boring of all creatures. Take a current debate among those Calvinists who are not happy unless they are arguing (in other words more or less all of us.) It is the Two Kingdom (2k) v. the Neo-Kuyperians Wars, which sounds like an episode of Star Trek. ¹

Now, this is not your father’s Calvinistic debate, even if your father is quite young. Not long ago the game-changing kerfuffle was over the New Perspective on Paul. That was, at least, a juicy and substantive debate that you could really sink your teeth into. That got into the holy-of-holies issues of justification by faith alone and one-time justification. That was about whether the Reformation, to a certain extent, was a mistake traceable to Luther’s ignorance regarding 1^st century Judaism and temple worship. ²

The 2k v. Neo-Kuyperians debate is not of the same substance. It is more or less this:

2kers: There are two kingdoms or realms. God reigns over both but they are distinct. There is the kingdom of God and there are the kingdoms (nations) of the world. The Church, in this view, should have its primary dwelling in the kingdom of God, and believers should think of themselves, first, as citizens/subjects in this Kingdom. The kingdoms of the world, at their best, are not about biblical law, but natural law.

The Neo-Kuyperians (cool name) acknowledge the unfortunate reality of two kingdoms but do not accept that this is as it should be or must be. They argue that the two kingdoms should morph into one, by means of Christians fully engaging in the culture and politics.

To me this debate is simply theological window dressing on the question of how extensively Christians should engage in the culture wars and enter civilian politics including running for office. The answers to this question on a survey would reveal, unsurprisingly, a spectrum. Divide it down the middle and we have 2k on the left and Neo-Kuyperians on the right, with lots of variation within each side. As Calvinists we take this simple reality and put theological lipstick on the pig to demonstrate that our side has more biblical support, so we win! Because that’s what Calvinists do. In this case, however, I think it is mostly a process of rationalization of one’s predetermined position, not inductive reasoning.

Both stands, like any two sides that must accommodate billions of people in one camp or the other, suffer chowderheads on the extremes. The extremists among the 2kers are essentially isolationists. They are Amish-esque. They totally disengage from the world. The extremists among the Neo-Kuyperians are the theonomists and the Christian reconstructionists  ³ who advocate for a theocracy.

If I must pick a side, I'm a die-hard 2ker. (Because, dontcha know,  that's the side with the biblical support!) Three cheers for the separation of church and state.

---

¹ 2k theology is also known as R2k, where the R is for the magical adjective Reformed. Everything is automatically splendiferous if it is tagged Reformed.

² Answer: the Reformation was not a mistake, and on the topic of Justification-- well M. Luther, pardon the pun, nailed it.

³ (In Yosemite Sam voice) I hates theonomists. First I hates ‘em for their vile views and second, I hate ‘em because they have given postmillennialism a bad name. But postmillennialism does not imply theonomy (may it never be!) There is the bottom-up orthodox view of postmillennialism sometimes called the pietistic or revivalist view which is in direct contrast to the unorthodox top-down reconstructionist view. The latter takes the unbiblical position that, because reasons, Jesus is waiting around until we create a government worthy of his return.