See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 first.
I now come to an evaluation of the two kingdoms view of Christianity and culture. Of all four views I have outlined, I would regard this one as the “home base,” or the place where I stand while drawing on valid insights from the other views.
I believe the two kingdoms approach has a number of strengths. It rightly accounts for the New Testament teaching that believers live in two ages at once, with responsibilities both to the common kingdom of this age and the redemptive kingdom of the age to come. For this reason, it rightly recognizes that the church is to be a distinctive body in this world, made up of citizens of the redemptive kingdom, and with a focused mission to make disciples of all nations. Furthermore, it gives Christians freedom to engage with the culture of the common kingdom through their various callings without imposing pressure on us to figure out what is the “Christian” approach to everything. In other words, it rightly recognizes Christian freedom in many areas of life. This approach also tempers expectations by reminding us that, while our labor in this world is good, valuable, and honorable, we must not imagine that we have the ability or responsibility to build the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God (as George Ladd rightly pointed out decades ago), is never presented in the New Testament as the result of a human endeavor. We do not create it, build it, expand it, etc., but we do receive it, enter it, etc. The two kingdoms model tells us to labor on in faithfulness, patiently waiting for God to do what he has promised by sending the fullness of his kingdom in his time.
But the two kingdoms view also has some pitfalls to avoid. It can lead one to the erroneous conclusion that one side of life is “religious” (and therefore private), while the other side is “secular” (and therefore public). By doing so, it may feed into the myth of a neutral public square where different religious convictions have no effect. Along the same lines, the two kingdoms view is the one least likely to acknowledge the important role that Christianity has played in the shaping of culture throughout history. As James K.A. Smith pointed out recently, some parts of our lives that many theologians identify as “common grace” is really the long-term effects of the gospel permeating a civilization over the centuries. In order to reflect reality, the two kingdoms view must recognize that the “common kingdom” is affected by the presence or absence of Christianity, for the better or for the worse, and drastic differences in culture have resulted from this. If the transformationist view tends toward too much optimism, the two kingdoms view may tend toward too much pessimism, at least in regard to the potential for Christianity to shape human culture.
All in all, I find myself most at home in a two kingdoms view, but I try to avoid these pitfalls by acknowledging the good insights of other perspectives. Transformationists rightly seek the long-term transformation of culture. Counterculturalists rightly see the need for the church to be a distinctive culture within itself, one that bears witness to the wider world of the transforming power of the gospel. The Relevance approach rightly seeks to contextualize the gospel for every generation. I believe Christians must do all of these things as they live as citizens of the City of God who are sojourners in the City of Man.
theologicaltraining 
Hi Aaron,
Is this the last in this series? Do you have practical outworkings for your perspective?
To be honest, I’m not comfortable limiting myself to four approaches because, as you note, each has limitations and good points. But how would you fit the seed falling to the ground and growing to take over everything, or the spreading out of the yeast? Which approach would that come under? Or is that too general?
In terms of the way forward from here, do you mind if I throw out a few thoughts? (I’ll assume you said yes 🙂 ).
1. I have recently had Psalm 11 come to mind, especially verse 3, “if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The answer, take refuge in the Lord and live righteously. I certainly agree, as you note from James K.A. Smith above, that the gospel has permeated our civilisation over centuries, right to its foundations. Now, the foundations are being destroyed through over-correcting real and perceived weaknesses, but this is not out of the Lord’s hands. He tests people (v4) through these very situations, the righteous (v5) and the wicked (vv5-6). It’s a time of purification, where the righteous can become more righteous, though the civilisation may or may not survive.
2. The purification of the righteous is desperately needed. Let’s be honest – the righteous are not particularly righteous! Proud, immoral, and excellent at producing a righteousness of our own, Christians in the West are in need of sifting. We have sinned against God and others, and non-Christians know it. Two anecdotes come to mind:
a) The illustration of a sheep thief branded with ST on his forhead who served the people in his town so that years later the letters took on the meaning “Saint”. tomboulian.wikispaces.com/file/view/Sheep+Thief.pdf
b) A blog post (can’t trace it) was written as if from a future date about what happened to Mark Driscoll over the intervening years. Instead of starting a new church in Phoenix, he disappeared and started ministering to the down-and-out and homeless. Years passed, and rumours surfaced of his work, but he avoided publicity. Finally, someone caught up with him and found a completely transformed Mark Driscoll, making a huge difference in people’s lives through Christ.
In light of these examples, I think if Christians take the present situation as an opportunity to repent and reform, to love and work in the shadows, that is how the foundations will be rebuilt, if that’s in God’s plan.
3. The above sounds an awful lot like the Benedict Option, doesn’t it? The problem is, the Benedict Option requires more than just a change of focus. It requires repentance and changed lives. I sometimes read the Peaceful Wife blog, and the type of repentance and change discussed there is something of a parallel I see necessary for the Benedict Option to work. In other words, we need a renewed commitment to the Lord. We need conviction about things we are unaware of that are sinful, then repentance, then long-term working out of change, through his strength.
4. How that flows out into the culture would be an organic thing, but also would result to a change in structures and institutions. That distinctive community of Christ spreads to the non-Christian community, meaning that the church is the heart of the society, within a society increasingly built and maintained by people formed by the church, through continual repentance and change where repentance reveals a need.
No. 4 is ideal, of course, but I think that’s a better picture than the two kingdom approach. I prefer using the Christian who is changed at the centre and being sanctified as the model for culture and societies. Therefore, there might be two kingdoms, but they occupy the same spaces, and one is losing – not through fighting, but through persuasion and conversion.
Can you tell I’m writing without having it all figured out?
Anyway, those are my thoughts for the moment.
Thanks for your posts.
Alistair.
LikeLike
Ali, these are great thoughts. You really got my wheels turning. I’ll plan to write up a concluding post to this series and hopefully post it on Wednesday.
LikeLike