A life of righteousness
I have seen a few bits and pieces around in the last few weeks about the “two kingdoms” and a Christian’s responsibility as citizens in one and participants in the other. I have also been asked to preach early next year on a topic which bears some relation to this. I was therefore struck by a couple of paragraphs in Charles Spurgeon’s excellent book A Good Start: A Book for Young Men and Women (from the chapter ‘The Business Man’s Good Service’, pp. 287-289 of my edition) which gives a little insight into that good man’s perspective on the Christian’s earthly responsibilities. This, remember, is the man whose secretary estimated him to be at the head of some sixty-six separate institutions, many of them charitable endeavours. Spurgeon’s heart and money and hand were where his mouth was, and here he urges Christians to pursue righteousness in all their dealings. Spurgeon never lost sight of the centrality of gospel teaching, but neither did he limit the extent of gospel reaching, and its impact on a man’s life and priorities.
By the phrase “His righteousness” [in Matthew 6.33], I understand that power in the world which is always working, in some form or other, for that which is good, and true, and pure. Everything in this world which is holy, and honest, and of good repute, may count upon the Christian as its friend, for it is a part of God’s righteousness. Does drunkenness eat out the very life of our nation? Do you want men of temperance to battle this evil? The Christian cries, “Write down my name.” When the slave has to be freed, the subjects of God’s kingdom were to the front in that deed of righteousness; and to-day, if oppression is to be put down, we dare not refuse our aid. If the people are to be educated, and better housed, we hail the proposal with delight. If the horrible sin of the period is to be denounced and punished, we may not shrink from the loathsome conflict. Let each man in his own position labour after purity; and, as God shall help us, we may yet sweep the streets of their infamies, and deliver our youth from pollution. Every Christian man should say of every struggle for better things, “I am in it, cost what it may.” Hosts of your professors of religion forget to seek God’s righteousness, and seem to suppose that their principal business is to save their own souls – poor little souls that they are! Their religion is barely sufficient to fill up the vacuum within their own ribs, where their hearts should be. This selfishness is not the religion of Jesus. The religion of Jesus is unselfish: it enlists a man as a crusader against everything that is unrighteous. We are knights of the red cross, and our bloodless battles are against all things that degrade our fellow-men, whether they be causes social, political, or religious. We fight for everything that is good, true, and just.
True religion is diffusive and extensive in its operations. I see people drawing lines continually, and saying, “So far is religious, and so far is secular.” What do you mean? The notion is one which suits with the exploded notions of sacred places, priests, shrines, and relics. I do not believe in it. Everything is holy to a holy man. To the pure all things are pure. To a man who seeks first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, his house is a temple, his meals are sacraments, his garments are vestments, every day is a holy day, and he himself is a priest and a king unto God. The sphere of Christianity is co-extensive with daily life. I am not to say, “I serve God when I stand in the pulpit”; for that might imply that I wished to serve the devil when the sermon was over. We are not only to be devout at church, and pious at prayer-meetings; but to be devout and godly everywhere. Religion must not be like a fine piece of mediaeval armour, to be hung upon the wall, or only worn on state occasions. No; it is a garment for the house, the shop, the bank. Your ledgers and iron safes are to be made by grace “holiness unto the Lord.” Godliness is for the parlour and the drawing-room, the counting-house and the exchange. It can neither be put off nor on. It is of the man and in the man if it be real. Righteousness is a quality of the heart, and abides in the nature of the saved man as a component part of his new self. He is not righteous who is not always righteous.
(If you would like to dig deeper into this rich little book, you can read the first chapter in six instalments: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6)
Hm, interesting. This “two kingdoms” stuff is quite new to me and I keep intending to read up on the “Establishment Principle” of Thomas Chalmers et al. Without knowing much about the two kingdoms view at all, it seems on first impressions to be rather at odds with — and, even, not particularly aware of? — the Est.Princ., which seems to me (well, perhaps inevitably!) to be at least as valid and viable an alternative… ?
cath
Monday 31 August 2009 at 21:00
To be honest, Cath, most of these labels are somewhat novel to me. I keep hearing them, and then trying to figure out which Biblical principles they are meant to be embracing, and how accurately and extensively the whole thing maps over those principles.
Scott Clark makes a fair amount of noise about the two kingdoms, and Kevin DeYoung was doing some kind of comparison between that and something else not long ago, and of course we have an abundance of Kuyperian types all proclaiming Jesus’ lordship over every square inch of creation.
I am sure that the thorough Dr Clark has somewhere summarised his view of the two kingdoms. Where would I go for a good overview of the Establishment Principle? Might I already know it by some other name?
Jeremy Walker
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 13:36
Cath,
If I understand things correctly you are not too far off in principle. The seeds of the difference between the two in part may be observed by comparing the Westminster Confession as orginally published and the later American modification there-of.
Basically in principle, the orginal (1646) calls on the state to legislate not only for the protection and promulgation of the the Christian church in general but the Christian church as constituted by the Westminster Standards/Solemn League and Covenant.
The US amendment (1788) on the other hand calls upon the State to protect Christianity in general, but not one particular denomination, and removed the phrases giving the State the right to call Synods etc. In other words a greater, if not complete separation of Church and State. (This is probably a very simplistic view).
Having said all that the current emphasis of the Two Kingdom’s movement is more a reaction to the ever increasing emphasis of evangelicalism in its efforts to make the culture “Christian”, advocates will maintain that the Church should just concentrate on being faithful in its own sphere and by its members being lights in a dark place. Advocates will be firmly committed to ordinary means ministry etc. and maintain that the Church (as the Church) has no political or cultural mandate.
Kuperians however believe, roughly, that Christ is King over all the world and that that should reflect in all aspects of life, whether “secular” or Church i.e. the target is a society renewed Christian culture.
Well, you can try and work out how the Establishment Principle fits in with either or both of these. I think historicallt Two Kingdoms is at odds with Kuperianism more than the Establishment principle. Idealogically I don’t know enough about them to say and certainly don’t know hardly anything about the Dutch background to Kuperianism and how it is similar to and/or different to the Westminster establishment.
Paul
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:29
Thanks Paul – that’s v useful! I’m slightly hesitant to offer this, but might it be the case that the Two Kingdoms approach is what the Disruption fathers (& descendants!) would have identified as “Voluntaryism”? (or does that just force an anachronistic set of categories onto the current situation…)
cath
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:42
I’m not sure if its anachronistic or not, because I don’t enough about the Disruption to know if they used that language, but I’d say that yes the 1788 revision of the confession moved things in the direction of what is called “Voluntaryism” and so the descendents would agree with your proposition.
I’d say the 2K approach, because of the US political situation, is more about culture than politics, if you know what I mean. Since the Revolution the Establishment Priniciple was pretty much a non-issue.
But I’m no expert. Let’s face it as a Reformed Baptist I probably haven’t got a right to be writing about this! :-)
Paul
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:50
Some useful discussion of Two Kingdom theology versus Kuyperianism (versus is too strong a word) can be had here at David Strain’s blog.
http://davestrain.wordpress.com/
Look at posts from the last couple of weeks.
P
Paul
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 20:39
Thanks, Paul – some helpful insights and links to other material giving a useful perspective on the ‘two kingdoms’ idea.
Jeremy Walker
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:09
… where I moved on to quiz Mr Strain after my first comment here! :)
cath
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:10
So you did! :-) ..hadn’t been over there since the weekend Cath. Anyway. Interesting comments from David, I thought the point about 2K being somewhat similar to Melville was well made.
Paul
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:42
This book might help on the ‘two kingdoms’ take.
Jeremy Walker
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:15
The Establishment Principle was hotly disputed at the time of the 1843 Disruption so to the extent that i know anything about it, it’s mainly from general folklorish sources! Except that i did read some small bits of some of the c19th literature a good few years ago [& probably before i really understood what i was doing]. There’s a couple of relevant chapters in James Walker’s Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750, aside from what Hugh Millar wrote in the run up to the Disruption, and Henry Moncrieff. Titles might come back to me later. I’m also aware of, but don’t think I’ve read, weighty tomes like James Bannerman’s two volumes on The Church of Christ, and things by William Cunningham. And there’s a chapter called ‘Church and State’ by Rev Neil A Macleod in Hold Fast your Confession (1978, ed Donald Macleod). Not terribly sure how accessible some of these are though :S The idea being basically that the Church should be free from State interference in ecclesiastical matters, and the State free from Church interference in civil matters, BUT there are areas where Church and State should cooperate. At the time of the Disruption, as far as i understand it, one practical area of cooperation was in the Church’s ministers’ stipends being paid by the State, a temporal benefit which the Disruption Fathers were prepared to forego, and did forego to vast personal as well as financial cost in 1843, when the civil authorities interfered with what they understood to be the purely ecclesiastical matter of what ministers to appoint to what congregations, and church discipline.
cath
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:35
And, of course, how could I forget, Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex – just a couple of centuries before Chalmers & co!
cath
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 21:50
You will find this interview concerning him interesting.
http://reformedforum.org/ctc83/
P
Paul
Tuesday 1 September 2009 at 22:01