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.
The desire to have a more holistic approach produced the transformationist view. This view is often associated with Abraham Kuyper, a pastor who became Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper taught God’s common grace to all people, and emphasised the need for Christians to continue the creation mandate given to Adam. He famously wrote that ‘There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!” ’ Although he believed in separation of church and state, Kuyper encouraged Christians to live with a unified approach to everyday life. Like the two-kingdoms view, the transformationist view precipitated out of the political realities of the day.
By Kuyper’s time, democracy had spread over much of the world, offering the average person more of an opportunity to transform society. Similarly, the transformationist view encourages Christians to use their influence to transform society. The strength of the transformationist view is a more holistic approach to everyday life. A weakness of the transformationist view is mission drift – because the view does not clearly stress the church as a spiritual reality with a spiritual mission, transformationist churches sometimes become too focused on social action or politics.
As we evaluate these views it’s important to do so charitably, remembering that there are Bible-believing Christians on both sides. It’s also true that sometimes there is not that much difference in practice between a church that emphasises the two-kingdoms view and a church that emphasises the transformationist view. The main thing is to avoid is the extremes. Churches shouldn’t be slow to show loving kindness to those in need, and Christians must be aware of the danger of mission drift. The church is a spiritual reality and so, although we are to be involved in everyday life, we must place primary focus on things of eternal spiritual value.
