Are you ‘two-kingdoms’ or ‘transformationist’?

One of the perennial questions that Christians ask is how the church should engage with society.

The Bible is clear that individual Christians should share God’s love with everyone in the contexts that God has placed them, but to what extent should the church, as the church, seek to influence society? There are several ways of addressing this question, but in recent years many evangelicals have gravitated to one of two paradigms – either a two-kingdoms model, or a transformationist model. These models or views can get complicated, but it’s useful for Christians to have a basic sense of the strengths and weaknesses of each, as well as being aware of the history.

The two-kingdoms view was a product of the Reformation; Luther and other reformers were reacting against the excesses of medieval Christendom. The medieval synthesis of church and state resulted in the church interfering in the state, and the state interfering in the church. Luther explained that these were legitimate but separate spheres. God has allowed political rulers to have authority over kingdoms in this world, and Christians are to submit to them. The church, on the other hand, is a spiritual kingdom not a worldly kingdom, and so political rulers should not govern the church. The Lutheran princes put these principals very clearly in the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Similarly, the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights ensured what Jefferson called ‘a wall of separation between church and state’. This separation is a strength of the two-kingdoms view, because it protects the church from the state. Whilst the two-kingdoms view encourages Christians to be involved in society, it stresses the spiritual nature of the church, which helps the church to prioritise spiritual realities, rather than becoming embroiled in politics. A weakness of the two-kingdoms view is that it can lead to a compartmentalised approach to faith that is slow to show loving kindness to the needs of the world.