'Two Kingdoms' = Theological Hogwash

by

The notion that the principles and values revealed in both the Old and New Testaments do not apply to civil government is, quite frankly, drivel.

Once in a while, I come across something that theologically goes "a step too far," and the theologian in me awakens to say, "No way!" It happened recently when I read that fundamentalist Christians are using what is called "two-kingdom theology" to justify their ongoing support for Donald Trump despite his glaring immoralities and obvious political ineptness.

I had to do some research even to remember what two-kingdom theology is. In a milder form, it is the recognition that there are two kingdoms – the Kingdom of God and "the kingdoms of this world." We have no problem affirming that. But the problem is, a handful of advocates have gone on to claim that the two kingdoms are radically separate, and that the values of the Kingdom of God are only operative for believers and for the Church--not the state or the government. This more extreme interpretation is the one being used by a small, but aggressive group of (mostly) white-male Christian fundamentalists.

Robert Jeffries, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas (a major fundamentalist pulpit in the Southern Baptist Convention) and a member of President Trump's evangelical support council, summarized two-kingdom theology in these words, "While Scripture commands individual Christians and churches to show mercy to those in need, the Bible never calls on government to act as a Good Samaritan." [1]

Honestly, there is only one response to this: it is theological hogwash. But that doesn't sound academic enough, so I will write a bit more. The notion that the principles and values revealed in both the Old and New Testaments do not apply to civil government is, quite frankly, drivel. To allege this, one must completely overlook the prophetic tradition which arose in Israel specifically to call the monarchy into account for its failure to enact God's steadfast love (hesed) for the common good--a failure, the pre-exilic prophets intoned, would bring about the downfall of the nation--which it did twice: in 722 BCE and in 586 BCE. [2]

There are simply too many passages to cite here where the prophets call out Israel's governmental/political failure to be a manifestation of God's mercy. Two verses from Isaiah completely undermine extremist two-kingdom theology, to say nothing of the hundreds of others that do the same...

"Doom to those who pronounce wicked decrees, and keep writing harmful laws to deprive the needy of their rights and to rob the poor among my people of justice; to make widows their loot ; to steal from orphans!" (Isaiah 10:1-2 CEB).

Governmental derilection of duty was seen as an affront to God's nature (as if God would want divine principles in religion, but not in society), a violation of the Covenant, where Israel was called to be a light to the nations by the example it set in caring for widows, orphans, the poor, and the oppressed. Both religious leaders and kings were to be in sync as pueveyors of goodness, and they were called out when they failed to do so.

Jesus carried on the prophetic tradition by indicting both the religious and political leaders for their failure to show compassion to "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40), choosing instead to oppress and exploit people through the government (e.g. tax extortion) and in the temple (e.g. money changers). He told his followers to beware the yeast (the unrighteousness) of the Pharisees and Herod (Mark 8:14-15). He clearly taught that the light and life of the Kingdom of God was meant to transform society, not just religion (Matthew 5:13-16). His message was clear: God's ways are intended to define and direct both the religious and politica dimensions of life.

To hold the extremist two-kingdom theology, one must overlook the social holiness tradition that runs from Genesis to Revelation, and which has continued to define the Christian tradition ever since. The extremist version of two-kingdom theology is a false interpretation of the Gospel that has been relegated to the theological junk yard--which makes its use by a few fundamentalist all the more curious and troubling.

Sadly, the two-kingdom advocates misuse passages like 1Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:3, failing to see that while the passages acknowledge the fallen-world status of the Roman empire, they do not even hint that the condition is okay--and neither passage even comes close to saying that unholy government is the will of God. Peter's words do not give the government a pass or exempt the political realm from holiness. Instead, he calls on the government to be an instrument God can use to punish evil and do good (v. 14).

Similarly, Paul's words affirm the government's role to be that of upholding righteousness. To allege that these texts create a two-kingdom reality with God's mercy only manditory in the religious domain is--as I said earlier--theological hogwash. Neither Peter nor Paul can be used to justify the extremist two-kingdom theology.

And now – cut to the chase: by pulling out an obscure and already-debunked theological view, the fundamentalists are exposing their lack of biblical savvy, despite their claims to be the ones who know how to interpret the Bible correctly. And even more, their use of the counterfeit two-kingdom theology is a sign of their desperation to "clothe" the emperor, who actually has no clothes on. At most, it is a bogus "covering" made of theological Saran Wrap.

[1] David Brockman, "The Little-Known Theology Behind White Evangelical Support of Donald Trump," The Texas Observer, March 29, 2018.

[2] Walter Brueggemann, 'Journey to the Common Good' (Westminster John Knox, 2010). Brueggemann cites passage after passage in the pivotal books of Exodus, Jeremiah, and Isaiah to show how the Israel, in every aspect of its life (including government) was meant to embody and express God's love and compassion--steadfast love (hesed). The rest of Brueggemann's writing adds further confirmation that government, not just religion, is called to manifest holiness. This is one reason why an authentic holiness always has a prophetic, counter-cultural motif in the face of personal and systemic evil.

The Rev. Dr. Steve Harper is a retired seminary professor, who taught for 32 years in the disciplines of Spiritual Formation and Wesley Studies. Author and co-author of 31 books and a retired Elder in The Florida Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church, he and his wife Jeannie Waller Harper are frequent leaders of workshops and spiritual retreats. This post is republished with permission from his Facebook page.