There has been a fair bit of discussion about the so-called “two kingdoms” doctrine in Reformed circles of late. Two books have recently been released that get at the topic from a (theologically informed) historical vantage point. The first is by University of Chattanooga history professor William J. Wright and is entitled Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism and can be found here. Professor Wright seeks to untangle Luther’s doctrine from its associations with Christian passivity in the face of Hitler and the rise of National Socialism in Germany.
The second book is by Westminster Seminary California professor David VanDrunen and is entitled Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought and is obtainable here. Dr. VanDrunen seeks to explore the historical use of the two ideas within Reformed theology: natural law and two kingdoms. There is no doubt that both doctrines found a place within early stages of development in Reformed theological circles. So how do the doctrines function? If the idea of natural law is not merely a Roman Catholic or Enlightenment doctrine, how was the doctrine formulated and understood within Reformed circles? What accounts for its falling out of favor with Reformed theologians? The same kind of questions could be asked of the two kingdoms doctrine. Is it not the quintessential Lutheran doctrine that undermines sovereign Lordship of Christ over all his creation? Perhaps, perhaps not.
In questions like these readers need to distinguish the historical question from the theological question (this is not to argue for neutral history, but to not allow one’s theology to dictate what a particular historical person said or did not say). We need to first ascertain just what given theologians held before we can make theological assessments or evaluations. When a sound historical assessment of sources has been made we may have to reevaluate long and dearly held assumptions. But we cannot and ought not to assume we can make theological evaluations until we have done our homework. After all, the Reformed faith did not begin in the 19th or 20th century and it is not immediately obvious that later developments are necessarily improvements to earlier formulations. Later developments may be improvements or they may be regressions or simply misunderstandings of previous theological formulations. At the end of the day, readers do not have to agree with these authors, but they will need to give them serious consideration.
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18)