And let’s not be afraid to do good to all people, especially to the household of faith.
Let’s work against the injustices and suffering in our day, and let’s be realistic that the poor, as Jesus said, will always be among us.
Let’s be clear: there is not a single thing here a theonomist or Christian Reconstructionist would not, and has not, championed from the beginning.
De Young glosses that on the “plus side” of two-kingdoms theology is that it is “A bulwark against theonomy and reconstructionism.” Finally, someone actually admits it.
They don’t engage us exegetically; they just need some way to block it out of the discussion.
The two-kingdoms guys would rather have a denuded social theology, however wrong its social implications and omissions may be, than deal with God’s Law for society.
What we have here, finally, is an admission (intentional or not) of the designs for which modern two-kingdoms theology has been promoted with such emphasis.
Interestingly, this is the only conclusion De Young comes to.
The rest is cloudy and unsure, bifurcated and bipolar. “I’m not quite sure.” But there is one thing on which many modern 2K advocates don’t lack certainty: they need “A bulwark against theonomy and reconstructionism.” In all the clouded confusion, obfuscation, and fence-sitting, when the issue of biblical law arises to the fore, they suddenly have perfect clarity: “Definitely not.” “This must be stopped at all costs.” “We need a bulwark against this.” They have no alternative laid out, no plan, no blueprint, no vision (and, of course, there is a reason for that–Prov.
He writes, “I don’t like the ‘third rail’ folks who are always positioning themselves as the sane alternative between two extremes, but I have to admit that there are elements of both approaches–two kingdom theology and neo-Kuyperianism–that seem biblical and elements that seem dangerous.” Like those third-rail folk or not, there’s nothing like the responsibilities and strictures that God’s Law places upon nations and societies to turn theologians and pastors into fence-sitters. Maybe states can rob, plunder, harass, kidnap, jail, and murder people (and Christians can vote for it all! ), but they are perfectly clear and visionary on what they want: God’s Law.
And so De Young concludes in third-rail form: “Perhaps there is a–I can’t believe I’m going to say it–a middle ground.” After listing his pros and cons of each side, De Young concludes, “So where does this leave us? One of the theonomic authors once nailed it with this analogy: Society is diseased and we have the cure, but the evangelical world will for some reason try every bottle of medicine in the cabinet, one by one, and die trying, before they reach for that one bottle that happens to say “theonomy” on the label.
I’m not quite sure.” 2K has some goods and some dangers, and Neo-Kuperianism has some appeal and some dangers. Here’s De Young’s prescription: I say, let’s not lose the heart of the gospel, divine self-satisfaction through self-substitution.
And let’s not apologize for challenging Christians to show this same kind of dying love to others.
Let’s not be embarrassed by the doctrine of hell and the necessity of repentance and regeneration.